[astro] Re: Good News -- Fwd: IEEE CEC 2010 Paper #7866 Decision Notification
Malik Magdon-Ismail
magdon at cs.rpi.edu
Mon Mar 15 22:44:26 EDT 2010
Hi,
Congratulations.
-Malik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Faith in Probability
Malik Magdon-Ismail
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
Office: Rm 312 Lally mail: Rm 207, Lally Building,
email: magdon at cs.rpi.edu CS Department, RPI,
tel: 518-276-4857 110 8th Street,
fax: 518-276-4033 Troy, NY 12180-3590.
web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~magdon
key: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~magdon/MalikMagdon-Ismail.PublicKey.asc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Travis Desell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Good news about the CEC submission. I'm going to work on an updated draft going over the comments from the reviewers, and send it out within a week or so, so you'll have time to make additional comments before I submit the camera ready draft.
>
> --Travis
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Gary Fogel <gfogel at natural-selection.com>
>> Date: March 15, 2010 6:39:37 PM EDT
>> To: deselt at cs.rpi.edu
>> Subject: IEEE CEC 2010 Paper #7866 Decision Notification
>> Reply-To: Gary Fogel <gfogel at natural-selection.com>
>>
>> Dear Author(s),
>>
>> Congratulations! On behalf of the IEEE CEC 2010 Technical Program Committee
>> and the program chairs, we are pleased to inform you that your paper:
>>
>> Paper ID: 7866
>> Author(s): Travis Desell, David Anderson, Malik Magdon-Ismail, Heidi Newberg, Boleslaw Szymanski and Carlos Varela
>> Title: An Analysis of Massively Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms
>>
>> has been accepted for presentation at the 2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
>> Computation and for publication in the conference proceedings published
>> annually by IEEE. This email provides you with all the information you require
>> to complete your paper and submit it for inclusion in the proceedings. A
>> notification of the presentation format (oral or poster) and timing of that
>> presentation will be sent by mid-April.
>>
>> Here are the steps you must follow:
>>
>> 1. Please see the REVIEWERS' COMMENTS below for your paper, which are intended
>> to help you to improve your paper for final publication. The listed comments
>> should be addressed, as acceptance is conditional on appropriate response to
>> the requirements and comments. Please adhere to the formatting instructions
>> carefully.
>>
>> 2. Please prepare your manuscript for final camera ready submission following
>> the same PDF format guidelines as for the initial submission. Papers are
>> limited to eight (8) pages in length, must be IEEE Xplore-compatible, and must
>> follow the formatting instructions provided at:
>>
>> http://www.wcci2010.org
>>
>> When you have completed your paper and are ready to submit it, please go to:
>>
>> http://ieee-cis.org/conferences/cec2010/upload.php?PaperID=7866
>>
>> to submit your final camera-ready paper. On this page you will need to use
>> the following password:
>>
>> zx4pp48
>>
>> which is valid only for a single submission of your final camera-ready paper
>> and you cannot submit any subsequent revision. Final papers MUST be submitted
>> by May 2, 2010. Any papers submitted after this date run the risk of not being
>> included in the proceedings. The paper must be re-submitted even if the
>> reviewers indicated that no changes are required.
>>
>> IMPORTANT: Please note that once you submit your paper, you cannot submit any
>> subsequent revision. All papers submitted through the web site are considered
>> to be in final form and ready for publication. Do not submit your paper until
>> you are ready. A good suggestion is to have a few colleagues review your
>> paper to provide final remarks on its suitability before submitting it through
>> the web site. In addition please note that the proceedings will be printed in
>> black and white, not in color and it is the author's responsibility to ensure
>> that all figures/plots can be printed and understood in black and white.
>>
>> 3. In order for your paper to be published in the conference
>> proceedings, a *signed IEEE Copyright Form* must be submitted for each
>> paper. WCCI 2010 has registered to use the IEEE Electronic Copyright
>> (eCF) service. The confirmation page shown after submitting
>> your final paper contains a button linking directly to a secure IEEE
>> eCF site which allows electronic completion of the copyright assignment
>> process. In case it fails, please have the completed IEEE Copyright
>> Form, found at
>> http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/copyrightmain.html faxed to
>> the Registration Chair, Carlos Molina, at +34 953 21 28 83 or email
>> it to carlosmo at ujaen.es.
>>
>> If the fax machine does not answer or is busy, please try again later.
>>
>> IMPORTANT: No paper can be published in the proceedings without being
>> accompanied by a Completed IEEE Copyright Transfer Form. You must
>> complete and submit this form to have your paper included in the
>> conference proceedings.
>>
>> 4. Register for the conference at http://www.wcci2010.org by clicking on the
>> conference registration link on the left-hand side of the main page. This link
>> will be activated very soon.
>>
>> IMPORTANT: Each paper must have a corresponding registered author to be
>> included in the proceedings. Papers that do not have an associated registered
>> author will not be included in the proceedings. The deadline for author
>> registration is May 2, 2010 so be sure to register by that time to ensure that
>> your paper is included in the proceedings. Registering late may mean that
>> your paper may not appear in the proceedings. Please ensure that you complete
>> your registration early.
>>
>> 5. Make your hotel reservation for the 2010 IEEE WCCI with information
>> obtained on the hotel reservation link "Accommodation" of the main 2010 IEEE
>> WCCI page at http://www.wcci2010.org.
>>
>> If you have any questions regarding the reviews of your paper please contact
>> Gary Fogel <gfogel at natural-selection.com>. Thank you for participating in what
>> promises to be an excellent meeting.
>>
>> Sincerely, Gary Fogel <gfogel at natural-selection.com> Hisao Ishibuchi
>> <hisaoi at cs.osakafu-u.ac.jp>
>>
>>
>> REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> REVIEW NO. 1
>>
>> Originality: Weak Accept
>> Significance of topic: Strong Accept
>> Technical quality: Weak Accept
>> Relevance to IEEE CEC 2010:Accept
>> Presentation: Weak Accept
>> Overall rating: Weak Accept
>>
>> Reviewer's expertise on the topic: Medium
>> Suggested form of presentation: Any
>> Best Paper Award nomination: No
>>
>> Comments to the authors:
>> This paper describes a variety of evolutionary algorithm approaches and
>> strategies for distributed execution, then simulates the execution of these in
>> homogenous, heterogeneous and internet-like environments. The primary
>> contribution of the paper is the results of the simulations, comparing the
>> performance of various approaches with respect to different evolutionary
>> algorithms. The results would be of interest to EA researchers looking to
>> distribute/parallelise execution of their EAs. A secondary contribution is the
>> simulation environment itself, that would potentially allow EA researchers to
>> determine the best execution strategy for their particular evolutionary
>> algorithm. Overall, an interesting an useful contribution.
>>
>> My primary concern is in the accuracy of the simulation; it is well known in
>> computer science that simulation and real-world execution may often be widely
>> different. Whilst I believe that the authors have gone to lengths to ensure
>> accuracy in their simulation, the results would be more convincing if a separate
>> comparison of simulation results and real results were given, for one of the
>> particular problems at least (using, presumably, existing results from
>> elsewhere). If performance of the simulation matches (more or less) the actual
>> execution on real hardware platforms, this would significantly strengthen the
>> results presented. If not, it would be useful to understand why this might be.
>> The lack of a simulation validation is my primary reason for "weak accept"
>> rather than "accept".
>>
>> Some finer-grained comments:
>> - multiple references look better combined, e.g. "[1, 2, 3, 4]".
>> - some double quotes have the left-hand quotes the wrong way around.
>> - grammar garbled a bit page 3, col 2, para 2; suggest "...; asynchronous
>> optimization generates new individuals in response to work requests from
>> workers, and inserts ...".
>> - sec. IV, 1st paragraph, long sentence at end.
>> - equations immediately followed by a section heading/etc. do not look nice in
>> my opinion, suggest putting some of the text after (equation 7).
>> - page 4, 2nd para, "insertion and removal". "another trip" (superfluous "a").
>> - some figure references are confused, e.g. "V-C.1" should be "4" and "V-C.3"
>> should be "7".
>> - page 4, 2nd col, para 2, "10-10" looks a little strange, presumably supposed
>> to be "10E-10"?
>> - figures: the text in some figures (most figures) is hard to read, either
>> because it is faded (colouring at a guess), or because the font is too small.
>> - figure 4: Y-axis labels are wrong in Ackley and Rastrigin. Also
>> inconsistencies in the presentation of numbers, e.g. "10000" vs. "10,000".
>> Having these axes as "10^1", "10^2", etc. would make more sense I think.
>> - page 5, col 2, para 2, "of it's individual" -> "of its individual".
>> - same chunk, point 3 (internet-line envs.), "results was examined" -> "results
>> were examined".
>> - same paragraph, suggest removing "attempted to be".
>> - bottom of page 5, col 2, "Figure 6 gives" -> "Figure 6 includes".
>> - figure 5: inconsistencies in presentation of Y-axis numbering. Also various
>> lines are missing from some graphs (presumably because these did not produce
>> results). Suggest removing these from the key if really not there.
>> - figure 6: very hard to tell which line is which in black and white, and the
>> text is barely readable due to size.
>> - beneath figure 6, 3rd para, "EAS" -> "EAs".
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> REVIEW NO. 2
>>
>> Originality: Strong Accept
>> Significance of topic: Strong Accept
>> Technical quality: Accept
>> Relevance to IEEE CEC 2010:Strong Accept
>> Presentation: Accept
>> Overall rating: Strong Accept
>>
>> Reviewer's expertise on the topic: Medium
>> Suggested form of presentation: Oral
>> Best Paper Award nomination: No
>>
>> Comments to the authors:
>> It's delightful to review such a practical job. The authors took comprehensive
>> experiments and succeeded demonstrating the great advantages of using
>> asynchronous strategies for distributed EAs. The work is detailed described and
>> the discussions of the experiment results are impressive. Some of the
>> experimental results under Internet Environment are really interensting and they
>> may possibly lead to some more interesting further research. It's overall a nice
>> paper, nevertheless, some improvements could be made:
>>
>> 1. In section V. Result: rather than mixing together with result analyses, it is
>> recommended that the experiment descriptions(including parameters, test
>> functions and experiment environments), are seperated from it. This may make
>> this section more readable.
>>
>> 2. Some non-technical faults should be fixed. For example, text in some
>> graphics(Ackley and Rastrigin in Homogeneous Environment) is not correct; and in
>> "Asynchronous approaches to distributed EAs are typically
>> use a single-population and a master-worker model." in page 3, should "are" be
>> deleted?
>>
>> 3. This paper would be more convincing if the experiments in all the situations
>> are repeated more and mean values are given.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> REVIEW NO. 3
>>
>> Originality: Neutral
>> Significance of topic: Weak Accept
>> Technical quality: Weak Accept
>> Relevance to IEEE CEC 2010:Accept
>> Presentation: Reject
>> Overall rating: Neutral
>>
>> Reviewer's expertise on the topic: Medium
>> Suggested form of presentation: Any
>> Best Paper Award nomination: No
>>
>> Comments to the authors:
>> In the article, the authors report on their experiments with a simulated
>> evaluation framework. The framework is intended to allow to evaluate
>> evolutionary algorithms that are performed in a distributed way with respect to
>> their performance for finding solutions.
>>
>> While this is an interesting topic for the CEC conference, the paper shows some
>> deficiencies in formal and content-related aspects.
>>
>> Presentation:
>>
>> 1. Please check whether your illustrations are readable when printed on a
>> monochrome printer. Figure 2 and Figure 3 are virtually unreadable. In Fig.4 and
>> 5, the bars are barely distinguishable.
>> 2. It would be better to reduce the number of graphs in Fig.4 and increase their
>> size or reorganise for better readability.
>> 3. Figure references in the text are invalid: where is "Figure V-C.1"? (+similar
>> cases)
>> 4. Labeling in Figure 4 has errors. The y-axis of the first bar chart is
>> (almost) identical to the x-axis; the y-axis of the thirs chart is presumably
>> default.
>> 5. Replace some of the semicolons with commas (+break long sentences).
>> 6. Section "VI. Discussion" should be "VI. Conclusions", according to its contents.
>> 7. Check formulae (1) and (2); they only differ by "if/from" which seems to make
>> no sense. Also, the elements r and D are not introduced, making understanding
>> difficult.
>>
>> There are more writing errors; please check.
>>
>> Contents:
>>
>> When I leave away all illustrations, the first half of the paper is a review of
>> known concepts. In section IV you finally present your contribution which I
>> hoped to get more information on, but this is limited to just one column.
>>
>> The concept as such is interesting and delivers likewise interesting results,
>> but as said, this should be more elaborate, and the introduction at the
>> beginning may be shortened.
>>
>> This amounts to a neutral recommendation from me.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Travis Desell
> <deselt @ cs.rpi.edu>
> 1-518-867-1054
> Worldwide Computing Laboratory ( http://wcl.cs.rpi.edu/ )
> MilkyWay at Home ( http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/ )
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy NY 12180, USA
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
More information about the astro
mailing list