Finish evaluation for QBFs

review_1/review_1.tex

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
 \usepackage[english]{babel}
 \usepackage{csquotes}
+\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
+\usepackage{hyperref}
 
 \begin{document}
 
@@ -22,32 +24,64 @@ 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
+spelling errors that should be resolvable by either using spellcheck software or
-(e.g., page 5 in the section \emph{Planning}: \enquote{A existence...}). Some
+by rereading the paper (for the grammatical errors). Abbreviations such as
-sentences are grammatically incorrect or are hard to read due to their
+\emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should not be used in scientific writing. At the
-structure. The sentence on the bottom of page 3 and the beginning of page 4 is
+end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is started with \enquote{Another} but never
-an example of this. Scientific writing normally does not use abbreviations such
+finished.
-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}
+The abstract is very short and does not describe the relevance of your topic or
-\label{sec:Layout}
+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.
 
-It seems that the course template has been used, although the title page has
+The introduction touches upon the relevant information needed to put solving
-been changed to be on a single page and a table of contents is included. The
+QBFs into relation with other problems, e.g., the SAT problem. The motivation
-introductory slides of this course states that
+for solving QBFs and why QBFs are important is not clear. I would suggest
+including a sentence or two about what makes QBFs interesting, what kind of
+problems are solvable by using QBFs and why the research community could not do
+that before by using SAT solvers for example.
+
+The individual parts of the paper are a bit disjointed because the transition
+from one section to the next is not always clear. See for example from section 2
+to section 3 where suddenly 2QBFs are introduced. Additionally, it is not said
+why we need CEGAR and what it is good for. I like the idea to compare QBFs to
+normal SAT in terms of complexity. For someone who is mostly familiar with the
+complexity classes up to \textsf{NP}, further explanations for \textsf{PSPACE}
+would be beneficial. For example discussing why \textsf{PSPACE} mirrors games
+would aid in understanding the complexity landscape for these types of problems.
+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.
+
+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.
+
+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.
+
+\section{Major issues}
+\label{sec:Major issues}
+
+\section{Minor issues}
+\label{sec:Minor issues}
 
 \end{document}