-------------------------------------------------------------- --- For your convenience, this form can be processed by EasyChair --- automatically. You can fill out this form offline and then --- upload it to EasyChair. Several review forms can be uploaded --- simultaneously. You can modify your reviews as many times as --- you want. --- When filling out the review form please mind --- the following rules: --- (1) Lines beginning with --- are comments. EasyChair will --- ignore them. Do not start lines in your review with --- --- as they will be ignored. You can add comments to the --- review form or remove them --- (2) Lines beginning with *** are used by EasyChair. Do not --- remove or modify these lines or the review will become --- unusable and will be rejected by EasyChair -------------------------------------------------------------- *** REVIEW FORM ID: 364430::198847 *** SUBMISSION NUMBER: 24 *** TITLE: Supporting Coherence in Multiagent System: Relational Temporal Difference with Influence Trace *** AUTHORS: (anonymous) *** PC MEMBER: Daichi Sirano -------------------------------------------------------------- *** REVIEW: --- Please provide a detailed review, including justification for --- your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless --- the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required. It's a very tough task to follow the texts. Let me pick up just one example from Abstract. The author wrote "We construct decentralized multiagent system which behavior describes multijointed robot." It's still not so bad, but it might be better to be "We construct a decentralized multiagent system which describes (controls) behaviors of multi-joint robot." But the sentence which follows is chaotic. That is, "... and learn every agent locally using different proposed techniques of collective reinforcement learning and compare their efficiency." This is more like a jigsaw puzzle. Each part is appropriate but order is unpredictable. The reviewer thinks the author has studied this topic quite well. But unfortunately, all the techniques described here are nowadays a textbook level. And the experiments described here are more like good practices for an undergraduate course. The author wrote "RL is a new ...," but a technique proposed in 1990's can be said to be new?" If this paper survives the review procedure, the author should proofread, or maybe better ask someone else to proofread. Typos, cares-mistakes, and essential mistakes are ubiquitous -- Just an example but "Multi-joined" or "multi-jointed?" Writing is quite good, but still the author should learn how the formal scientific articles are to be like. Thus, the paper is still very immature, but not a very bad one. The reviewer expects this paper is accepted and the author will make his best to refine it toward the camera-ready submission. -------------------------------------------------------------- *** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: --- If you wish to add any remarks for PC members, please write --- them below. These remarks will only be used during the PC --- meeting. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is --- optional. -------------------------------------------------------------- --- If the review was written by (or with the help from) a --- subreviewer different from the PC member in charge, add --- information about the subreviewer in the form below. Do not --- modify the lines beginning with *** *** REVIEWER'S FIRST NAME: (write in the next line) *** REVIEWER'S LAST NAME: (write in the next line) *** REVIEWER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: (write in the next line) -------------------------------------------------------------- --- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your --- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the --- irrelevant lines *** OVERALL EVALUATION: --- 3 (strong accept) --- 2 (accept) --- 1 (weak accept) 0 (borderline paper) --- -1 (weak reject) --- -2 (reject) --- -3 (strong reject) *** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE: --- 4 (expert) 3 (high) --- 2 (medium) --- 1 (low) --- 0 (null) *** RELEVANCE TO THIS CONFERENCE: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) 2 (poor) --- 1 (very poor) *** ORIGINALITY/UNIQUENESS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) --- 2 (poor) 1 (very poor) *** ENGLISH READABILITY: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) 2 (poor) --- 1 (very poor) *** PAPER ORGANIZATION/PRESENTATION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) 2 (poor) --- 1 (very poor) *** HAS GOOD SURVEY BEEN DONE?: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) --- 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) 3 (fair) --- 2 (poor) --- 1 (very poor) *** END --------------------------------------------------------------