Subject: Re: My review in txt form.
From: "Saulius Maskeliunas" <[email-masked]>
To: Akira IMADA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:40:51 +0200

Hello, Akira,

Sincerely thank you for your thoughtful review !
I've attached how it looks after submission;
if there is anything what should be changes - let inform me.

Ookini arigatou ! [uncertain] / Ačiū ! [certain] :-)

With best wishes,
Saulius

> On 10 Mar 2008 at 1:50,  you wrote:
> 
> Dear Saulius,
> 
> Please find attached a text fromat of my review.
> 
> Feel free to ask me to make some part more clear, 
> or something like that.
> 
> Have a good start of the week.
> 
> Akira,

Subject: Review of paper 20 for BalticDB&IS2008
From: BalticDB&IS2008 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:20:08 +0200 (EET)

Following is a copy of your review for paper number 20 submitted to BalticDB&IS2008.  Note that you will receive this email even if an error occured during submission.

Other reviewer:       Akira Imada <[email-masked]> , Brest State Technical Univ., BY/JP http://neuro.bstu.by/ai/akira.html
Overall rating:       Accept
Originality:       Weak Accept
Significance:       Neutral
Technical quality:       Accept
Relevance:       Accept
Presentation:       Accept
Referee's expertise on the topic: Medium
Amount of rewriting required: Medium
Sessions:
                      Information Systems and AI Technologies (Application)

**** Comments for Committee ****

**** Comments for Authors ****
main contribution: 
The topic might not be of great interest of conference's but the experiment with its future expansion is interesting enough.
positive aspects: 
The descriptions are clear so that an interested party could repeat the identical experiment.
negative aspects: 
How did the author determines those parameters is not clear. Some of the topic that the author neglect might be important -- Like Capacity dependence on the number of neurons.
further comments: 
-----------------------------
As for expression in English:
-----------------------------

   - "server" might be "serve" 
           In "... Aacc is to server for it" 
   - "supervised and supervised" should be "supervised and unsupervised"
           In "Both supervised and supervised learning methods are available"
   - "simplification" should be " a simplification"
           In "Eq. (14) is simplification of Eq. (8)"
   - "A the moment threshold crossing" might be "At the moment of ..."
   - "Thus Eq. (1)" should be indented or included the previous paragraph.

(Anyway, proofread the manuscript more carefully!)

----------------------------------------------
Other minor recommendations as for its format:
----------------------------------------------
(1)
"1<=f<=n" would be better to be "f = 1, 2,..., n" in Eq. (2) since f is discrete.

(2)
format of "Reference list" must be unified. E.g. 2002. or (2002).

(3)
Abstract should be independent. So, the acronym SNN should be given in the text not in the abstract.

(4)
"(wij)" in the caption of Fig. 1 should be "wij" comparing with the other such notations in the caption.

-------------------------
Recommendation to author:
-------------------------
(1)
Fig. 3 must be explained more in detail in its caption, as well as in the text.

(2)
The number of patterns recognized (capacity) might be dependent on number of neurons whichever just in one hidden-layer or those in the case of multiple layers. The author might refer to this point more explicitly even if it would be one of future works.

-----------------------------
Reviewer's opinions/questions
-----------------------------
(1)
Author wrote "... in order to avoid weights to become 'hollow' (too great or too small)." IMHO, however, it would be no need to avoid weight value becomes too small, that is, we may simply interpret the case the connection is pruned if such connections are not many.

(2)
One thing proposed in this paper is "adding activation acceleration factor Aacc," then the experimental results WITH AND WITHOUT this factor must be important for the sake of comparison.

(3)
How the author determined those parameters given in Table-1? After trial and error experiments? Or, Are those values are optimised ones?