Diferenças

Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.

--- geopro:pedro:revisao-geoinfo [2007/02/28 12:35] – created pedro
+++ geopro:pedro:revisao-geoinfo [2008/07/03 20:32] (atual) – removed pedro
@@ Linha 1: / Linha 1: @@
-Reviewer: 1
-   Originality : Strong Accept
-   Quality : Weak Reject
-   Relevance : Accept
-   Presentation : Neutral
-   Recommendation : Weak Reject
-Summary: Spatial mobiliy as exploited e.g. in (mult~-player and mixed
-reality) games is an important issue.
-In this paper a new model for games on grids with agents in the grids
-allowed to move in space, i.e. leaving a grid and entering others.
-Spatial mobility is modeled and simulated in a number of different
-situations and under a number of varied strategies.
-Details: What is the `lua ` language (Section 4)?
-All figures (especiallz Fig. 6), and there esp. the lines drawn in the
-figures, are not sufficientlz visible and separated (at least in a
-black/white print out).
-In Section 5 there was mentioned to show three experiments concerning
-how characteristics of the space may impact the results of the game
-simulations. I cannot see how the money in 5.1, the gain in 5.2 and the
-eleven strategies in 5.3 could help in this?
-The 6 diagrams in Fig. 5 do need more explanations.
-Please, make clear that in the final version of the paper answers to
-the following questions will get clear to the reader:
- - what should be enhanced?
- - what is the goal to achieve?
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-=====================================
-Reviewer: 2
-   Originality : Accept
-   Quality : Accept
-   Relevance : Strong Accept
-   Presentation : Accept
-   Recommendation : Accept
-Summary: The authors describe what they claim is a new model for games
-on grids, where each cell contains agents that compete for it, and,
-instead of changing their strategies, the agents may move in the space.
-Details: This short (?) paper is fairly easy to read and contains
-interesting ideas.
-The authors should include some justification for basing their model on
-the chicken game. They should also  warn the reader, in section 2, that
-Section 5 will discuss variations of the initial parameters.
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-=====================================
-Reviewer: 3
-   Originality : Accept
-   Quality : Reject
-   Relevance : Weak Accept
-   Presentation : Reject
-   Recommendation : Weak Reject
-Summary: The paper presents a study on mobility based on game theory.
-Details: Maybe because of the numerous defficiencies in writing, I
-could not really understand the point of this paper. It proposes
-experiments using game theory, in which a set of rules is set. It seems to me
-(and that is why I set my expertise as "Low" in this subject) that a
-different set of rules could produce a totally different result. The trick,
-IMHO, lies in setting rules that actually relate to something in the
-physical world, so that the results can be translatable to reality in
-some practical way. The experiments conducted and described in the paper
-seem to be in line with the authors' intention of showing how the whole
-game theory idea works, and how does it perform in comparison with
-itself when some conditions are changed.
-At the end, in the conclusions section, I ended up with the feeling
-that the meaning of "spatial" in the context of the game is not the same
-as our field is used to discuss.
-In my opinion, the paper would benefit greatly from the inclusion of a
-real-world situation that could be approximated by the game, and by
-explanations as to how to interpret the results in light of the example
-situation.
-The paper deserves a complete English grammar review. Some figures
-contain lines that cannot be easily distinguished from each other in a
-black-and-white printout.
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-=====================================
-Reviewer: 4
-   Originality : Accept
-   Quality : Weak Reject
-   Relevance : Neutral
-   Presentation : Reject
-   Recommendation : Weak Reject
-Summary: Present a new model of non-cooperative games within the
-framework of Game Theory based on conflicting agents with moving
-capabilities. The authors use a well-known example of Game Theory and evaluate some
-experiences with different topologies and behaviours.
-Details: What are the motivations for these model? In what type of
-experiences do you think it will serve better as an explanation or
-prediction tool? I think there is a mix, in the current paper, between the
-model itself (a possible original and useful idea) and the test case (which
-states a relation between the results and Nash equilibrium, but I don't
-understand the relevance of the result). This difference should be
-stated more sharply.
-In this sense, what are we gaining with all those variants of the
-initial chicken game?
-If the results are indeed relevant, you should discuss them a bit more
-in section 4. You could  talk more about why are the results as they
-are. What are your ideas/arguments for the dynamics of these values thru
-time?
-I'm not sure if you present enough data to assert the 2nd paragraph of
-the conclusions.
-There is a serious problem relating the graphics and its labels, they
-do not match. Some use colors and  others use dashes and solid lines.
-You should drop colors, unless the printing paper will also be  printed
-in color. In my case, everything was black and white, so I couldn't spot
-the differences.
-Some side notes:
-perhaps label Table 1 as 'Payoff Function', since you use the term in
-the beginning of section 2
-in page 2, by 'colons' I suppose you mean 'colonists'
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No
-Candidate for the best paper award? : No