| ²é¿´: 5804 | »Ø¸´: 27 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
BJTerryгæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[½»Á÷]
ÂÛÎÄ·µÐ޺󱻾ܣ¬Çó°ïæ¿´¿´¾ÜÐÅ ÒÑÓÐ16È˲ÎÓë
|
||
|
ÂÛÎÄͶ¸å±È½Ï²¨ÕÛ£¬Ê±¼äÖÁ½ñÒÑÓаëÄêÁË¡£ÎÄÕ¸ºÔðÈËÊǸ±Ö÷±à£¨ÔÚÃÀ¹úµÄ»ªÈË£©£¬Ò»ÉóÒâ¼û³åÍ»£¬¸±Ö÷±àÒªÇóÔö¼ÓÉó¸åÈËÉó¸å£¬Ôö¼ÓºóÒ»Éóͨ¹ý£¬µ«ÐèÒªÐÞ¸Ä ±¾ÔÂ3ºÅÌá½»µÄÐ޸ĸ壬×òÌìÊÕµ½Ö÷±à£¨Ó¡¶ÈÈË£¬²»Çå³þΪʲôËûÀ´¸ºÔðÎÒµÄÎÄÕÂÁË£©µÄ±»¾ÜÓʼþ¡£±»¾ÜËù¸½µÄÉó¸åÄÚÈݾÓÈ»ºÍÐ޸ĸøµÄÉó¸åÒâ¼ûÒ»Ñù£¬Ã»ÓÐÇå³þдÃ÷±»¾ÜÀíÓÉ£¬ÎÒ²»ÖªµÀÊDz»ÊÇÆäÖгöÏÖÁËʲôÎÊÌâ£¬ÌØ¸½¾ÜÐÅ£¬Âé·³´ó¼Ò°ïÎÒ¿´¿´£¬ÊDz»ÊDZà¼×Ô¼º×ö³öµÄ¾ö¶¨¾Ü¸ãÁË£¬Ð»Ð»¡£ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear author(s) Ref: Submission "*****" Your above mentioned submitted article has been read through several rounds of peer review. Unfortunately, the recommendation is that the article be rejected. We have come to the conclusion after a careful evaluation of your work. Articles submitted to the International Journal of *** are judged on their timeliness and novelty; significance to the field and potential impact on the course of future work in the area. I would not advise you to revise the article in anything like its present form. I am enclosing part of the referee's reports. However, I do thank you for your interest in the International Journal of ***. Best Wishes, ------------------------------------- COMMENTS MADE BY REFEREES: ------------------------- First Review: ------------- The experiments conducted are based on only synthetic datasets - this might not be convincing enough to claim the superiority of the algorithm. Data from the real world (possibly multidimensional data) are recommended. Second Review: ------------- No One major concern is the experimental settings, which should be depicted more detailed. Since the fault matrix A is generated randomly, the results are untrusted unless they are averaged by many runs. Similarly, since evolutionary algorithms are randomized algorithms in nature, i.e., their results may be unaccepted sometimes, the author(s) should state clearly whether the results is attained by one run or best of many runs, i.e., how much the variance of results is. Another concern is that the paper fails to describe the IGA in detail. In line 5 of Algorithm 1, how the V is computed by matrix A? Since there are some techniques for crossover and mutation, what technique does the IGA use for crossover and mutation and why? In the abstract, the authors said appropriate termination criterion can improve the accuracy and efficiency of the algorithm, but they did not point out it clearly in this paper. The third concern is the feasibility of two vaccines V_1 and V_2. Since LB is the lower bound of the solution and the author(s) did not prove LB is the tight lower bound, it may be not helpful or good to make the individual consisting of LB '1' in some cases. So the authors need to deal with this problem in order to make the paper more rigorous logically. The grammar is generally acceptable, but more attention needs to be paid to raise the quality of polish. And there are some statements that need citations. For example, 'It has been proven that the minimal hitting set problem is NP-hard', 'Numerous studies show that it is far from enough for relying solely on evolutionary algorithm (such as genetic algorithm) to simulate human intelligence to deal with things' and so on. I think the sentence below the equation (2) maybe wrong. If not, why the author(s) give a different definition of 2-norm of vectors? |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
288Çóµ÷¼Á£¬Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÄÏÀí¹¤´óѧ071005
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Öйúº£Ñó´óѧ£¬ÉúÎïѧ£¬301·Ö£¬Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
294Çóµ÷¼Á²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤×¨Ë¶
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
0856µ÷¼Á£¬ÊÇѧУ¾ÍÈ¥
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
0817 »¯Ñ§¹¤³Ì 299·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á ÓпÆÑоÀú ÓжþÇøÎÄÕÂ
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
Áº³ÉΰÀÏʦ¿ÎÌâ×é»¶ÓÄãµÄ¼ÓÈë
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
¸´ÊÔµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
0703»¯Ñ§µ÷¼Á £¬Áù¼¶Òѹý£¬ÓпÆÑоÀú
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
321Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
¶«»ªÀí¹¤´óѧ»¯²Äרҵ26½ì˶ʿ²©Ê¿ÉêÇë
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
ÇëÎÊÕâ·Ý¾Ü¸åÐÅ˵µÄÊÇʲôÒâ˼
ÒѾÓÐ33È˻ظ´
¡¾±»¾ÜµÄÌåÎÞÍê·ô¡¿ÇóÍÆ¼öͨÐŹÜÀí¡¢²©ÞÄ·½Ãæ±È½ÏºÃÖеÄEI»òÕßSCIÆÚ¿¯
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
ÓïÑÔÎÊÌâ±»¾ÜÁ½´ÎͶ¸åÐÅÔõôд
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
ͶÁËһƪJPBA£¬Èý¸öÔ¸ø¾ÜÁË£¬±à¼µÄ¾ÜÐÅ
ÒѾÓÐ43È˻ظ´
Çë¿ÆÑÐÕ½¼¨µÄÅóÓÑÃǰïæ·ÖÎöһϣº·µÐÞµÄSCIÂÛÎÄ£¬Èç¹û¸ÄÊý¾Ý»áÔì³É¾Ü¸åÂð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
ÄÉÃ׺ϳɵÄÎÄÕ£¬ÂÛÎĶþÉ󱻾ܣ¬´ó¼Ò°ïÃ¦ÍÆ¼ö¸öÔÓÖ¾°É
ÒѾÓÐ29È˻ظ´
ÎÄÕ±»¾Ü£¬µ«ÏëдÉêËßÐÅ£¬ÈçºÎд£¿
ÒѾÓÐ21È˻ظ´
±»¾ÜÁË£¬ÏëÉêËßÄØ£¬´ó¼Ò°ïæ¿´¿´¾Ü¸åÐÅ£¬»¹ÓÐûÓпÉÄÜ£¿
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
ÎÄÕ±»¾ÜÁË£¬Âé·³¸÷λ¸ßÊÖ½øÀ´°ïæ·ÖÎöϾܾøÒâ¼û¡£Ð»Ð»
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
¾Ü¸åÐÅ»¹ÐèÒª»Ø¸´Âð£¿
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
ÎÄÕ±»¾Ü£¬ÇóÖú±»¾ÜÐÅÖÐÒ»¶Î»°µÄÒâ˼
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
´ó¼Ò°ïæ¿´ÏÂÕâ·â¾Ü¸åÐÅÊÇʲôÒâ˼£¬»¹ÄܼÌÐøÍ¶Õâ¸öÆÚ¿¯Âð£¿ÏÈлл¸÷λÁË¡£
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
¿´Íê¾Ü¸åÐźóµÄÐÄÇé
ÒѾÓÐ37È˻ظ´
ÊÕµ½µÄ×î¿ìµÄ¾Ü¸åÐÅ£¡
ÒѾÓÐ38È˻ظ´
ÂÛÎÄ·µÐÞÇóÖú
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
ÎÄÕ±»¾Ü£¬Çë´ó¼Ò°ïÎÒ¿´¿´¾Ü¸åÐÅ£¬ÎÒÓ¦¸ÃÔõô°ì£¿
ÒѾÓÐ31È˻ظ´
¸å¼þ±»¾Ü£¬´òËã»ØÐÅÁ¦Õù
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
wellgpf
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 25 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 4763.1
- ºì»¨: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 2221
- ÔÚÏß: 41.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2215041
- ×¢²á: 2012-12-30
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: µçÁ¦ÏµÍ³

7Â¥2013-02-09 00:23:14
nuaawq
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 2144 (½²Ê¦)
- ½ð±Ò: 30734.1
- É¢½ð: 42
- ºì»¨: 17
- Ìû×Ó: 8063
- ÔÚÏß: 582.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1391607
- ×¢²á: 2011-09-05
- רҵ: ½ðÊô¹¦ÄܲÄÁÏ
2Â¥2013-02-08 19:28:26
nono2009
³¬¼¶°æÖ÷ (ÎÄѧ̩¶·)
No gains, no pains.
-

ר¼Ò¾Ñé: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- Ó¦Öú: 28684 (Ժʿ)
- ¹ó±ö: 513.911
- ½ð±Ò: 2555230
- É¢½ð: 27828
- ºì»¨: 2148
- ɳ·¢: 66666
- Ìû×Ó: 1602255
- ÔÚÏß: 65200.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 827383
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-13
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¹¤³ÌÈÈÎïÀíÓëÄÜÔ´ÀûÓÃ
- ¹ÜϽ: ¿ÆÑмҳﱸίԱ»á
3Â¥2013-02-08 20:54:53
BJTerry
гæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
- Ó¦Öú: 10 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1578.2
- É¢½ð: 683
- ºì»¨: 5
- Ìû×Ó: 224
- ÔÚÏß: 352.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1804539
- ×¢²á: 2012-05-08
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: È˹¤ÖÇÄÜÓë֪ʶ¹¤³Ì
4Â¥2013-02-08 23:25:09













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥