zenon/participatory-budgeting
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Finish review for QBFs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Tobias Eidelpes 2020-05-20 17:41:01 +02:00
parent d943be5fc1
commit 9cada7c489
1 changed files with 42 additions and 22 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

64
review_1/review_1.tex
View File

@ -26,17 +26,16 @@ is summarized in the conclusion.
The language used throughout the paper is in general suitable for scientific
writing with respect to the used vocabulary. There are some grammatical and
spelling errors that should be resolvable by either using spellcheck software or
by rereading the paper (for the grammatical errors). Abbreviations such as
\emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should not be used in scientific writing. At the
end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is started with \enquote{Another} but never
finished.
spelling errors that should be resolvable by using spellcheck software.
Abbreviations such as \emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should generally be avoided
when writing scientific papers. At the end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is
started with \enquote{Another} but never finished.
The abstract is very short and does not describe the relevance of your topic or
the content of your paper. I would start with a sentence like
\enquote{Quantified Boolean Formulae allow encoding complex problems such as
planning, two-player games and verification in a compact and natural way...}.
Hinting at the speed or general performance of QFB solvers is also an option.
Hinting at the speed or general performance of QBF solvers is also an option.
The introduction touches upon the relevant information needed to put solving
QBFs into relation with other problems, e.g., the SAT problem. The motivation
@ -57,31 +56,52 @@ I would also suggest rewriting the sentence at the bottom of page 3 to page 4
because it is worded in such a way that it is difficult to understand without
rereading the sentence multiple times.
For section number 4 going into more detail about each of the different problems
would give the reader a more complete picture. It is not clear for example why
section 4.1 is named \emph{Compression}. The text following the headline defines
the reachability problem which the reader cannot put into relation with the term
\emph{Compression}. The same problem applies to section 4.4 where the relation
of the headline to the text is only vaguely perceptible. The first paragraph for
\emph{Model Checking}, however, gives a short and concise description of the
problem and what the goal is. Likewise, section 4.3.1 contains a clear
description of the problem, how it is modeled using QBFs and what the solution
looks like. Applying a similar approach to the other sections would make it
easier for readers to know what to expect from each section and help them find
the information they need.
For section number 4, going into more detail about each of the different
problems would give the reader a more complete picture. It is not clear for
example why section 4.1 is named \emph{Compression}. The text following the
headline defines the reachability problem which the reader cannot put into
relation with the term \emph{Compression}. The first paragraph for \emph{Model
Checking}, however, gives a short and concise description of the problem and
what the goal is. Likewise, section 4.3.1 contains a clear description of the
problem, how it is modeled using QBFs and what the solution looks like. Applying
a similar approach to the other sections would make it easier for readers to
know what to expect from each section and help them find the information they
need.
The conclusion is missing an outlook on further research directions in the field
of QFBs which would wrap up the paper in a straightforward fashion.
of QBFs which would wrap up the paper in a straightforward fashion.
In summary, the structure of the paper is good although the individual sections
could contain more explanations of the problems and their solutions. See
section~\ref{sec:Major issues} and \ref{sec:Minor issues} for a listing of the
identified problems.
could contain more explanations of the problems and their solutions. The length
of the paper is within the 7-10 pages if the table of contents is left out and
the space on the title page is removed. See section~\ref{sec:Major issues} and
\ref{sec:Minor issues} for a listing of the identified problems.
\section{Major issues}
\label{sec:Major issues}
\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion are too short (see
section~\ref{sec:Evaluation} for suggestions)
\item Although the general structure is intuitive, the individual points and
sections are missing a red line that takes the reader from one point to
the next
\item It is very hard to grasp the concepts without reading additional
material
\end{itemize}
\section{Minor issues}
\label{sec:Minor issues}
\begin{itemize}\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\item The table of contents should be left out for short papers
\item The title page is on a separate page
\item Some figures and equations are not referenced correctly (sometimes the
word equation or figure is missing before the reference)
\item Some spelling and grammatical errors
\item Some references are missing information (e.g., [2] should mention the
workshop at IJCAI 2016; [5] was published in the lecture notes on
computer science and submitted to the SAT 2011 conference)
\end{itemize}
\end{document}