Subject: Your paper for AMiRE2007
From: Joaquin Sitte <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: AMiRE07 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:20:06 -0400

#191: Can learning robot solve 2-D jeep problem?

Dear AMiRE 2007 Author(s)

Your full length paper submitted to the AMiRE 2007 Symposium 
has been reviewed by three members of the International Program 
Committee and was found NOT ACCEPTABLE in its current form. 
However we encourage you to carefully revise your paper taking into account the comments by the reviewers, included below, and resubmit 
it before the 23 July 2007 due date for the final manuscript.  

Please submit your revised version by email directly to 
[email-masked] 
Your resubmission must conform to the format specified in the 
Instructions for Authors on the AMiRE 2007 web site. 
The conference chairs will then review your resubmission, and notify you within 48 hour of their decision.

Thank you again for your contribution 

Joaquin Sitte and Ulrich Rueckert
AMiRE 2007 Co-Chairs

-------
Review 1:

Author describes a problem where a robot navigates in a 2-D square matrix workspace, attempting to reach an exit point.  The robot has limited fuel but may deposit fuel caches or draw from fuel caches to reach its objective.  The main question is whether by learning the robot can improve its performance beyond performance realized by a random walk process.  The author says that so far there is no success in solving this problem but he describes  three possible approaches (genetic algorithm, learning navigation with memory, and quantum robot approach.)  The genetic algorithm is particularly interesting and the author provides an example plot.

Writing quality is low.

-------
Review 2:

Rating by 6 classes: Poor, Bad, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent.

1. Originality Very: Good

2. Technical Soundness: Very Good

3. Consistency of results: Good

4. Importance of results: Good

5. Literature review: Good

6: Clarity of Presentation: Good

Overall Rating: Good

Comments to the Author(s):

1. The author presented the paper from theoretical point of view rather than experimental analysis. Additional experiments will clarify the author’s work. 

2. The main idea of the manuscript is understandable. I suggest that the author adds some more details in section 2.2 to clarify the work.  

3. Figure 2 (Right) needs more explanation. 

-------
Review 3:

The paper does not develop in depth the problem presented in its title. The proposal of using mGA applied to the problem does not remain clear. Its reading is easy but lacks of depth and only remains in a group of proposals.

Some errors

It is necessary to define what is called a toroidal grid before using the concept.

77 Manhattan-distance -> 76?

1, 2, 3, 4 which means move right, left, up and down respectively->1, 2, 3, 4 which means move up, right, down and left respectively

((12)(34)(43)(62)(82))-> ¿(83)?

=======