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

Finish evaluation for QBFs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Tobias Eidelpes 2020-05-20 12:30:27 +02:00
parent cb49ecc60f
commit d943be5fc1
1 changed files with 57 additions and 23 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

80
review_1/review_1.tex
View File

@ -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
(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.
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.
\section{Layout}
\label{sec:Layout}
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.
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
The introduction touches upon the relevant information needed to put solving
QBFs into relation with other problems, e.g., the SAT problem. The motivation
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}