shorts2/model.tex

   1 \documentclass{article}
   2
   3 \usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
   4 \usepackage{hyperref}
   5
   6 \hypersetup{%
   7         pdfauthor={Mart Lubbers},
   8         pdfsubject={Short review},
   9         pdfcreator={Mart Lubbers},
  10         pdfproducer={Mart Lubbers},
  11         hidelinks
  12 }
  13
  14 \author{Mart Lubbers (s4109503)}
  15 \title{Model Learning}
  16 \date{2016{--}06{-}01}
  17
  18 \begin{document}
  19 \maketitle
  20 \subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
  21 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
  22 The article is a survey on the current state of the art on model learning.
  23 Model learning is the process in which a model is constructed by asking
  24 membership queries.
  25
  26 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
  27 At first a brief introduction on the algorithms is given and after that the
  28 current state of the art is given. By showing several case studies and
  29 exploring the field and its challenges the current state is described. Moreover
  30 the survey presents the latest improvements on the classical model learning
  31 algorithms. While the field is still in infancy there are already some
  32 promising results.
  33
  34 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
  35 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
  36 The paper is very readable and introduces the reader gradually to the subject
  37 by showing, possibly simplified, descriptions of the algorithms. Via the
  38 interesting case studies the reader is getting even more excited for the field.
  39
  40 %Weaknesses
  41 Weaknesses are rare in this paper. The paper shows largely examples from the
  42 Radboud University in Nijmegen.
  43
  44 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
  45 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
  46 %would you recommend acceptance?)
  47 For a general computer science journal I would accept this paper because it
  48 gives a nice update on the state of the art and is very readable for someone
  49 with no particular background information in the subject. However, the paper
  50 does not present a new idea so it might not be suitable for a specialized
  51 journal.
  52
  53 %Comments on quality of writing
  54 There have been various typographical and/or typesetting found in the paper.
  55 Also in some diagrams color is used whereas some people still print their
  56 papers and thus miss crucial information if only greyscale printing is done.
  57
  58 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
  59 %Queries for discussion
  60 \begin{itemize}
  61         \item More examples from other regions and/or universities should be given.
  62         \item The basic information about Mealy machines could also be left out.
  63 \end{itemize}
  64
  65 \end{document}