Author Response Information for Submission 56
Response Letter(s)
| Response Letter | |
| Response: | Ad REVIEW 1:
First, we have made explicit that we do not consider our new ordering CP as "an ultimate one" (as the review questions), but just as one that is formally (w.r.t. transitivity) and intuitionally (on the basis of the standard examples) better than P1, P2, and P3. We do not consider Theorem 5.16 to be the main theorem of our three theorems at all. Moreover, it does not say that our new ordering CP is weaker than P3, at least not in the sense to which the further critique refers, namely that it would be smaller w.r.t. set inclusion. Indeed, in Example 5.8, CP is able to compare (A_1,beer) with (A_3,vodka), which none of P1, P2, P3 can. So if there is a difference in practice, CP will be more often applicable than P1, P2, P3. Finally, we agree that the decision to put most of the examples into a section after the technical definitions has its disadvantages for the reader and we will look for a better solution (which is not straightforward because the complete examples cannot appear before the definitions to which they refer). Ad REVIEWS 2,3: We do agree! |
| Time: | Jan 13, 08:52 GMT |
| Letter: | Dear [*FIRST-NAME*], Thank you for your submission to KR2014. The KR2014 review response period will be between Jan. 12 and Jan. 13, 2014 During this time, you will have access to the current state of your reviews and have the opportunity to submit a response of up to 500 words. Please keep in mind the following during this process: * The response must focus on any factual errors in the reviews and any questions posed by the reviewers. It must not provide new research results or reformulate the presentation. Try to be as concise and to the point as possible. * The review response period is an opportunity to react to the reviews, but not a requirement to do so. Thus, if you feel the reviews are accurate and the reviewers have not asked any questions, then you should not respond. * The reviews are as submitted by the PC members, without any coordination between them. Thus, there may be inconsistencies. Furthermore, these are not the final versions of the reviews. The reviews will be updated to take into account the discussions at the program committee meeting, and we may find it necessary to solicit other outside reviews after the review response period. * The program committee will read your responses carefully and take this information into account during the discussions. On the other hand, the program committee will not directly respond to your responses, either before the program committee meeting or in the final versions of the reviews. * Your response will be seen by all PC members who have access to the discussion of your paper, so please try to be polite and constructive. The reviews on your paper are attached to this letter. To submit your response you should log on the EasyChair Web site for KR2014 and select your submission on the menu. Best wishes, [*REVIEWS*] |
| Time: | Jan 12, 10:31 GMT |
Reviews
| Review 1 | |
| Review: | The paper revisits the framework to define the specificity by Poole in 1985. The authors show several counter-intuitive examples of this framework, and propose a modification. The proposed relation for specificity is given in Section 5.2 (with less than one page!), and many examples are shown in Section 6. The new ordering works well in these examples, and shows its merit in this direction. The definition is good, but it is not clear whether this new ordering is an ultimate one without any counterintuitive cases or at least has no demerit. Actually, the main theorem (Theorem 5.16) only shows that the proposed ordering based on CP is weaker than the previous P3. Then in some cases, the proposed frameworks might be less conclusive. The paper often refers those examples that appear later in the paper. This is not a good style of paper writing, and should be improved to reorganize the construction of the paper. |
| For "reports from the field only": | * |
| Questions for the author response period: | |
| Review 2 | |
| Review: | The paper focuses on Poole's definition of specificity in defeasible logic, but also considers some variations ('improvements') of it. Poole's definition is criticised on intuitive and formal grounds. In particular an example is given showing that it is not transitive. Specificity is important in defeasible logic since it is reasonable to prefer specific arguments. The paper is mainly clearly written (although some sentences are a bit over-long). The paper benefits from many examples, both in introducing the basic notions and when examining different notions of specificity. As well as criticising Poole's definition the authors provide one of their own (CP). The key argument for CP is given just before 5.1 (and also just after it is defined). The actual definition of CP is pleasingly simple. The definition is intuitive (to me at least!) and more importantly so is its behaviour. I think the paper delivers what is sets out to do: criticise existing notions of specificity and offering a better alternative. This is done in two ways: illustrating intuitive / non-intuitive behaviour and establishing formal properties. I'm a bit sceptical typically of arguments for what is 'intuitive' (since intuitions differ) but I was surprised to find these to be compelling. The use of simple examples was helpful. The only way this paper could fail is if it were technically erroneous. I could find no errors. Small stuff: The tone is occasionally non-scientific: end of section 1, beginning of section 8. Whether this paper has shaken the field to its foundations is for others, not the authors, to judge. minorly -> slightly Please distinguish "argument" from "argumentation" "preventing that we fail to realize": rephrase grammatically |
| For "reports from the field only": | N/A |
| Questions for the author response period: | |
| Review 3 | |
| Review: | This paper was interesting to read, but you should not assume that the readers are all familiar with the past work. I am not sure whether this fix to an almost-30-year-old paper is an indication that there is very little interest in the problem or that this is a major accomplishment to solve an long-standing problem. I'd prefer to think it is the latter. Transitivity does seem like a good property to have. Your solution seems like a simple and reasonable fix that achieves this goal. |
| For "reports from the field only": | NA |
| Questions for the author response period: | |