Reviews and Comments on Paper 792
Paper information
| Paper #792: Vladimir Kats and Eugene Levner. A Polynomial Algorithm for 2-Cyclic Robotic Scheduling |
| Abstract: We solve a single-robot m-machine cyclic scheduling problem aris-ing in flexible manufacturing systems served by computer-conrolled robots. The problem is to find the minimum cycle time for the so-called 2-cyclic (or “2-degree”) schedules, in which exactly two parts enter and two parts leave the production line during each cycle. An earlier known polynomial time algo-rithm for this problem was applicable only to the Euclidean case, where the transportation times must satisfy the “triangle inequality”. In this paper we study a general non-Euclidean case. Applying a geometrical approach, we construct a polynomial time algorithm of complexity O(m^6 log m). (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Reviews superseded by other reviews are shown in the grey color in the table.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 | 3 | 2 | |||
| Review 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
Reviews and Comments
Review 1
| 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? | 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? | 1 (weak accept (vote accept but don't mind rejecting)) |
| 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: An improved (in terms of complexity) algorithm is given. POSITIVE ASPECTS: Novel results, clear explanations. NEGATIVE ASPECTS: It is not quite clear how important the task is; perhaps the authors should explain it much better. Format problems, see below. CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: Formulas must be typeset in an equation editor. Say, the parentheses or digits should not be italicized, etc. Format should be improved: e.g., vertical spaces before headers like "Type 1". More consistent indenting. Also, indenting of References. Check English: "In this paper we have studies" (studied), etc. |
| PC only: | |
| Time: | Jul 25, 08:10 |
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? | 0 (neutral (please avoid this option)) |
| 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? | 2 (accept (I will argue for this paper)) |
| Review: | CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER: An algorithm with improved complexity for a very special type of scheduling problem is proposed. POSITIVE ASPECTS: The proposed algorithm has lower complexity than the ones known previously. NEGATIVE ASPECTS: The task is too specific, not clear if interesting for many people. Some formatting problems. Some errors in English. CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE PAPER: Explain why the task is important. Fix the format. Proof-read. 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 25, 09:37 |