Add first review for QBFs
This commit is contained in:
parent
b14077134d
commit
cb49ecc60f
53
review_1/review_1.tex
Normal file
53
review_1/review_1.tex
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
|||||||
|
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
||||||
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
||||||
|
\usepackage[english]{babel}
|
||||||
|
\usepackage{csquotes}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\begin{document}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Summary}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:Summary}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The paper first gives a short introduction to the history of QBF solvers and
|
||||||
|
their relation to SAT solvers. The general structure of the paper is introduced.
|
||||||
|
A section about defining the terms used throughout the paper follows and the
|
||||||
|
complexity of these types of problems is mentioned. The Couterexample-Guided
|
||||||
|
Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) technique for solving QBFs is defined and the
|
||||||
|
principle is demonstrated by using pseudocode. The fourth, and main, section of
|
||||||
|
the paper discusses different applications for QBFs and the content of the paper
|
||||||
|
is summarized in the conclusion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Evaluation}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:Evaluation}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Overall impression}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:Overall impression}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Overall I think your paper provides a good overview of quantified boolean
|
||||||
|
formulae.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Language}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:Language}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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. Most notably indefinite articles that are missing or wrong
|
||||||
|
(e.g., page 5 in the section \emph{Planning}: \enquote{A existence...}). Some
|
||||||
|
sentences are grammatically incorrect or are hard to read due to their
|
||||||
|
structure. The sentence on the bottom of page 3 and the beginning of page 4 is
|
||||||
|
an example of this. Scientific writing normally does not use abbreviations such
|
||||||
|
as \emph{doesn't} or \emph{we're}. There is also one sentence at the end of
|
||||||
|
section 4.3.1 which is started with \enquote{Another} but never finished.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Layout}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:Layout}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It seems that the course template has been used, although the title page has
|
||||||
|
been changed to be on a single page and a table of contents is included. The
|
||||||
|
introductory slides of this course states that
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user