Add review for meta-heuristic methods

review_2/review_2.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
+
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage{csquotes}
+\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
+\usepackage{hyperref}
+\usepackage{ulem}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\section{Summary}
+\label{sec:Summary}
+
+The paper starts with providing the motivation for studying the traveling
+tournament problem (TTP) and giving an example for its application to a real
+world scenario. The complexity of the problem is introduced and opens the stage
+for algorithms that solve the traveling tournament problem in a reasonable
+amount of time. Next, the problem is defined by formulating the inputs,
+constraints that have to be satisfied by solutions and the goal. An example
+illustrating the problem and a solution is given. Simulated annealing is
+discussed as the first approach to solving TTP. The search for solutions is
+allowed to `backtrack' in a sense so that escaping local minima is possible. The
+size and frequency of such moves is decreasing over time.  Additional techniques
+for refining the search for solutions are discussed and referenced in
+pseudocode. A parallel variation of the simulated annealing algorithm is
+analyzed in section 4, giving better performance overall. The third approach ant
+colony optimization has multiple iterative algorithms searching for a solution
+randomly. Shorter paths are traveled more often than longer paths and are
+therefore more promising. Due to positive feedback, more and more instances are
+prioritizing the shortest path found so far. Section 6 compares the performance
+of the three different approaches to solving TTP and the conclusion gives a
+short outlook on promising research directions for the future.
+
+\section{Evaluation}
+\label{sec:Evaluation}
+
+The paper is very well written, giving a carefully selected introduction to TTP
+and meta-heuristic methods. Due to the structure being clear and
+straightforward, following the descriptions and discussions is effortless.
+
+The abstract has all the necessary information, hinting at the complexity of
+TTP, possible solutions and the structure of the paper.
+
+The introduction touches upon the motivation for solving TTP. I would suggest
+including a short sentence or two about the structure of the paper (like in the
+abstract) and a transition to the next section, which would aid the reader in
+keeping context. I would also suggest including a short description of what
+meta-heuristics are because the term is used later on but never explained.
+
+Section 2 establishes an intuitive problem setting without going into too much
+detail. The sentence beginning with \enquote{Now the goal \dots} could be
+formulated differently because it sounds like teams have to play away games
+exclusively between leaving and returning home. If possible, giving a short
+sentence to transition to section 3 would add more `natural flow' to the paper.
+
+The section on simulated annealing is very informative and written in a way that
+is easy to understand for a layman. Especially the two subsections (3.1 and 3.2)
+help with gaining a deeper understanding. When walking through the pseudocode in
+figure 2, a fifth point on what happens after point four would be beneficial.
+For example a sentence about how long the process is looped and when it
+terminates might be a possibility. For section 3.2 I would avoid having two
+headlines without any text between them. A sentence about what these advanced
+techniques accomplish should suffice. In section 3.2.1 it is mentioned that the
+parameter $w$ is chosen but not how it is chosen (arbitrarily or according to a
+rule?). The same applies to section 3.2.3 where it is not entirely clear how the
+number of maximum reheats (\emph{maxR}) is set.
+
+The figure in section 4 explains the concept of PBSA very well.
+
+Section 5 has a well written introduction which allows the reader to gain an
+intuitive understanding of this approach. It might not be clear to the reader,
+however, what the pheromone matrix contains (solutions and their pheromone
+levels?). For section 5.2 I would suggest mentioning whether unsafe backjumping
+has disadvantages regarding the quality of solutions.
+
+Section 6 is short and to the point and succinctly compares the performance of
+the three approaches. If a performance evaluation of ACO on the same dataset as
+in figure 4 could be found, the comparison would be even more meaningful.
+
+For the conclusion it is generally best to avoid introducing new references and
+terms. I would therefore suggest expanding on future research directions like
+the last sentence does. The sentence on recent advances might belong more to the
+introduction than the conclusion.
+
+The language used throughout the paper is consistently on a high level, although
+small typing errors can be found (e.g., section 1 \enquote{\dots with the
+constraint satisfaction \sout{what} that makes\dots}; section 3.2.2
+\sout{devides} divides).
+
+The references are used correctly and the bibliography provides the necessary
+information. The paper is within the 7-10 page bound. The figures are a bit
+blurry, so either trying to include a higher resolution version or rewriting
+some of the figures in \LaTeX\ (e.g., the table in fig. 1 and the algorithm in
+fig. 2) can be an improvement. The figures are still readable so this is just an
+aesthetic suggestion.
+
+Overall the paper is of very high quality and almost no points of criticism can
+be found. The suggestions above are minor issues only.
+
+\section{Minor issues}
+\label{sec:Minor issues}
+
+\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
+    \item Some spelling mistakes (see section~\ref{sec:Evaluation} for
+        suggestions)
+    \item Blurry images
+    \item Conclusion introducing new terms
+    \item Minor additions to expand on definitions (the weight parameter $w$ and
+        the pheromone matrix)
+\end{itemize}
+
+\end{document}