Reviews and Comments on Paper 580
Paper information
| Paper #580: Carlos Fernando Bustamante Horta, Leonardo Garrido and Rogelio Soto. Comparing Fuzzy Naive Bayes and Gaussian Naive Bayes for Decision Making in RoboCup 3D |
| Abstract: Learning and making decisions in a complex uncertain multiagent environment
like RoboCup Soccer Simulation 3D is a non-trivial task. In this paper,
a probabilistic approach to handle such uncertainty in RoboCup 3D is proposed,
specifically a Naive Bayes classifier. Although its conditional independence
assumption is not always accomplished, it has proved to be successful in
a whole range of applications. Typically, the Naive Bayes model assumes discrete
attributes, but in RoboCup 3D the attributes are continuous. In literature,
Naive Bayes has been adapted to handle continuous attributes mainly using
Gaussian distributions or discretizing the domain, both of which present
certain disadvantages. In the former, the probability density of attributes
is not always well-fitted by a normal distribution. In the latter, there
can be loss of information. Instead of discretizing, the use of
a Fuzzy Naive Bayes classifier is proposed in which attributes do not take a single
value, but a set of values with a certain membership degree. Gaussian and
Fuzzy Naive Bayes classifiers are implemented for the pass evaluation skill
of 3D agents. The classifiers are trained with different number of training
examples and different number of attributes. Each generated classifier is tested
in a scenario with three teammates and four opponents. Additionally,
Gaussian and Fuzzy approaches are compared versus a random pass selector. Finally,
it is shown that the Fuzzy Naive Bayes approach offers very promising results in the RoboCup
3D domain. (file) |
Summary of received reviews and comments
Reviews superseded by other reviews are shown in the grey color in the table.
| confidence | score | ||||
| Review 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| Review 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Review 3 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Review 4 | 3 | 2 | |||
Reviews and Comments
Review 1
| PC member: | |
| Reviewer: | |
| Overall rating: | 3 (strong accept) |
| Confidence: | 1 |
| Relevance: Is this paper relevant for this conference? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Are the claims sufficiently supported by experimental/theoretical results? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Significance: Are the results/ideas interesting for other AI researchers? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Originality: Are the results or ideas novel and previously unknown? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Format: Is the paper correctly and consistently formatted? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Review: | CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER: The authors compare Fuzzy Naive Bayes and Gaussian Naive Bayes for Decision Making in RoboCup 3D POSITIVE ASPECTS: Comparing Fuzzy Naive Bayes and Gaussian Naive Bayes for Decision Making in RoboCup is an important mpodern branch in CS and AI NEGATIVE ASPECTS: A theoretical motivation for shifting from the Bayes estimates to Fuzzy ones is not given sufficiently wide and clear. CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: Theoretical motivation for shifting from the Bayes estimates to Fuzzy should be given in a moreended form. FURTHER COMMENTS: none ITEMS BELOW ARE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SCORES IF NEGATIVE: (1) IS THIS PAPER RELEVANT FOR THIS CONFERENCE? (2) IS THIS PAPER TECHNICALLY SOUND AND COMPLETE? (3) ARE THE CLAIMS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTAL OR THEORETICAL RESULTS? (4) ARE THE RESULTS/IDEAS INTERESTING FOR OTHER AI RESEARCHERS? (5) ARE THE RESULTS OR IDEAS NOVEL AND PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN? (6) IS THE PAPER WELL-ORGANIZED AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND? (7) IS THE PAPER WRITTEN IN CORRECT ENGLISH AND STYLE? (8) IS THE PAPER CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY FORMATTED? |
| PC only: | None |
| Time: | Jul 14, 20:00 |
Review 2
| PC member: | |
| Overall rating: | 2 (accept: I will argue for this paper) |
| Confidence: | 2 |
| Relevance: Is this paper relevant for this conference? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Are the claims sufficiently supported by experimental/theoretical results? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Significance: Are the results/ideas interesting for other AI researchers? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Originality: Are the results or ideas novel and previously unknown? | 0 (neutral (please avoid this option)) |
| Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Format: Is the paper correctly and consistently formatted? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Review: | CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER: The Fuzzy Naive Bayesian classifier is implemented in a RoboCup simulation 3D team for decision making and the results are compared with the Gaussian model. POSITIVE ASPECTS: Well organized solid paper. NEGATIVE ASPECTS: The abstract could be written in 3rd person. CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: Consider the negative aspects. FURTHER COMMENTS: ITEMS BELOW ARE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SCORES IF NEGATIVE: (1) IS THIS PAPER RELEVANT FOR THIS CONFERENCE? (2) IS THIS PAPER TECHNICALLY SOUND AND COMPLETE? (3) ARE THE CLAIMS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTAL OR THEORETICAL RESULTS? (4) ARE THE RESULTS/IDEAS INTERESTING FOR OTHER AI RESEARCHERS? (5) ARE THE RESULTS OR IDEAS NOVEL AND PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN? (6) IS THE PAPER WELL-ORGANIZED AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND? (7) IS THE PAPER WRITTEN IN CORRECT ENGLISH AND STYLE? (8) IS THE PAPER CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY FORMATTED? |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Jul 18, 09:18 |
Review 3
| PC member: | |
| Overall rating: | 2 (accept: I will argue for this paper) |
| Confidence: | 2 |
| Relevance: Is this paper relevant for this conference? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Are the claims sufficiently supported by experimental/theoretical results? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Significance: Are the results/ideas interesting for other AI researchers? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Originality: Are the results or ideas novel and previously unknown? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Format: Is the paper correctly and consistently formatted? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Review: | CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER: A comparison for decision making on Robocup competition POSITIVE ASPECTS: It has a clear exposition of main ideas. NEGATIVE ASPECTS: Small things in format, e.g. delete hard new lines in source files just after formulae displayings. CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: FURTHER COMMENTS: ITEMS BELOW ARE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SCORES IF NEGATIVE: (1) IS THIS PAPER RELEVANT FOR THIS CONFERENCE? Yes (2) IS THIS PAPER TECHNICALLY SOUND AND COMPLETE? Yes (3) ARE THE CLAIMS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTAL OR THEORETICAL RESULTS? Yes (4) ARE THE RESULTS/IDEAS INTERESTING FOR OTHER AI RESEARCHERS? Yes (5) ARE THE RESULTS OR IDEAS NOVEL AND PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN? Yes (6) IS THE PAPER WELL-ORGANIZED AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND? Yes (7) IS THE PAPER WRITTEN IN CORRECT ENGLISH AND STYLE? Yes (8) IS THE PAPER CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY FORMATTED? Yes |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Jul 25, 16:18 |
Review 4
| PC member: | |
| Overall rating: | 2 (accept: I will argue for this paper) |
| Confidence: | 3 |
| Relevance: Is this paper relevant for this conference? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Are the claims sufficiently supported by experimental/theoretical results? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Significance: Are the results/ideas interesting for other AI researchers? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Originality: Are the results or ideas novel and previously unknown? | 1 (weak accept (vote accept but don't mind rejecting)) |
| Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Language: Is the paper written in correct English and style? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Format: Is the paper correctly and consistently formatted? | 3 (strong accept) |
| Review: | CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER: POSITIVE ASPECTS: NEGATIVE ASPECTS: CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: FURTHER COMMENTS: ITEMS BELOW ARE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SCORES IF NEGATIVE: (1) IS THIS PAPER RELEVANT FOR THIS CONFERENCE? (2) IS THIS PAPER TECHNICALLY SOUND AND COMPLETE? (3) ARE THE CLAIMS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTAL OR THEORETICAL RESULTS? (4) ARE THE RESULTS/IDEAS INTERESTING FOR OTHER AI RESEARCHERS? (5) ARE THE RESULTS OR IDEAS NOVEL AND PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN? (6) IS THE PAPER WELL-ORGANIZED AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND? (7) IS THE PAPER WRITTEN IN CORRECT ENGLISH AND STYLE? (8) IS THE PAPER CORRECTLY AND CONSISTENTLY FORMATTED? |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Aug 3, 03:10 |