Moderated by Erik Sandewall.
 

Fiora Pirri and Alberto Finzi

An Approach to Perception in Theory of Actions: Part I

The article mentioned above has been submitted to the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and the present page contains the review discussion. Click here for more explanations and for the webpage of theauthors: Fiora Pirri and Alberto Finzi.

Overview of interactions

N:o Question Answer(s) Continued discussion
1 5.12  Anonymous Referee 1
    
2 5.12  Anonymous Referee 2
    
 

Q1. Anonymous Referee 1 (5.12):

1. are the results of the article, as specified in the summary, of significant interest for researchers in our area?

yes

2. does the full text substantiate the claims made in the summary?

yes

3. is the text intelligible and concise?

yes

4. do you know of any previous publication of the same result?

no

5. are there any other considerations that may affect the decision?

I just found the remark on p.11 irritating: The successor state axiom for Percept is not per se nondeterministic, say, in the sense of [Lin, 96]. In fact the axiom can be rewritten to 

  Percept(isf,pr,do(a,s)) <=> ( (pr=1 & delta+) v (pr=0 & delta-) )
                              v
                              Percept(isf,pr,s) &
                                 not ( (pr=1 & delta-) v (pr=0 & delta+) )
which is the standard form of a successor state axiom.

Formula (7) should be added to the conditions of Lemma 1. What is the role of the the second argument for isInTrolley on p.31?

[Lin, 96] Fangzhen Lin. Embracing Causality in Specifying the Indeterminate Effects of Actions. AAAI'96.

Q2. Anonymous Referee 2 (5.12):

1. are the results of the article, as specified in the summary, of significant interest for researchers in our area?

yes

2. does the full text substantiate the claims made in the summary?

yes

3. is the text intelligible and concise?

yes

4. do you know of any previous publication of the same result?

no

5. are there any other considerations that may affect the decision?

no

 

Background: Review Protocol Pages and the ETAI

This Review Protocol Page (RPP) is a part of the webpage structure for the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, or ETAI. The ETAI is an electronic journal that uses the Internet medium not merely for distributing the articles, but also for a novel, two-stage review procedure. The first review phase is open and allows the peer community to ask questions to the author and to create a discussion about the contribution. The second phase - called refereeing in the ETAI - is like conventional journal refereeing except that the major part of the required feedback is supposed to have occurred already in the first, review phase.

The referees make a recommendation whether the article is to be accepted or declined, as usual. The article and the discussion remain on-line regardless of whether the article was accepted or not. Additional questions and discussion after the acceptance decision are welcomed.

The Review Protocol Page is used as a working structure for the entire reviewing process. During the first (review) phase it accumulates the successive debate contributions. If the referees make specific comments about the article in the refereeing phase, then those comments are posted on the RPP as well, but without indicating the identity of the referee. (In many cases the referees may return simply an " accept" or " decline" recommendation, namely if sufficient feedback has been obtained already in the review phase).