yesterday done

diff --git a/shorts1/yesterday.tex b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
index 6a4e397..3ac5a3f 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts1/yesterday.tex
+++ b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
@@ -19,21 +19,42 @@ report about the algorithm.
 
 \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The strengths of the paper is that is an easy read. The reader is slowly
+introduced into the theoretical framework to later get clear real world
+examples showing the capabilities of the algorithms.
 
 %Weaknesses
+Weaknesses are that the writer makes assumptions about the data that are not
+supported. For example on Page $255$ it states that worst case you need to test
+all $2^n$ configurations. But in practise this almost never is the case. Also
+he cites almost no related work and assumes by looking at one related paper
+that thus is no related work.
 
 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
 The author is very clear about the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed
-methods. 
+methods. It even provides a full implementation. I would recommend acceptance,
+but possible only after more related work was found.
 
 %Comments on quality of writing
-The paper is an easy read and is a good mix of formal descriptions and
-natural language. Also the structure of the paper is clear and it navigates the
-reader in a natural order through the materials.
+Concerning quality of writing; the paper is an easy read and is a good mix of
+formal descriptions and natural language. Also the structure of the paper is
+clear and it navigates the reader in a natural order through the materials.
+It's not very deeply embedded in the literature, this was already mentioned in
+the introduction.
 
 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
-
+\begin{itemize}
+       \item Page $255$ states that worst case you need to test all $2^n$
+               configurations. But in practise this almost never is the case. Is this
+               really almost never the case? This is not obvious since is other fields
+               of computer science, such as time complexity the average complexity
+               usually is closer to the maximal complexity than to the minimal
+               complexity.
+       \item Would it be better to research not so much the delta debugging
+               algorithm but the heuristics in searching since different clustering
+               heuristics give significantly different results.
+\end{itemize}
 \end{document}