Paper Proposals for Review
Reviews on "Particle filter-based information acquisition for robust plan recognition"

Reviewer #1: [name withheld]
Date submitted: May 6, 2005 6:01 PM

a) Summary Ranking
Evaluation Category Enter Your Score
Is the topic of the paper appropriate for presentation at Fusion2005? (1 = low, 5 = high) 5
Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field? (1 = low, 5 = high) 5
How would you rate the originality ? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 4
How would you rate the clarity of the paper? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 4
Rate the technical correctness (1= poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 5
Rate the references (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 5
Recommendation (1 = accept, 2 = accept with changes, 3 = reject) (1-3) 1
b) Detailed Comments
OK

Reviewer #2: [name withheld]
Date submitted: May 6, 2005 11:40 PM

a) Summary Ranking
Evaluation Category Enter Your Score
Is the topic of the paper appropriate for presentation at Fusion2005? (1 = low, 5 = high) 5
Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field? (1 = low, 5 = high) 4
How would you rate the originality ? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 4
How would you rate the clarity of the paper? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 4
Rate the technical correctness (1= poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 4
Rate the references (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 4
Recommendation (1 = accept, 2 = accept with changes, 3 = reject) (1-3) 1
b) Detailed Comments
1) Plan recognition is given an acroynm P1R. Does the numerial one between P and R mean something?
2) In Section 4.1, each particle is considered as a mode in the multi-modal state representation and the number is obviously very large. Is it possibl eto perform some clustering e.g. into a Gaussian mixture? Then each mixture component is used as a mode.

Reviewer #3: [name withheld]
Date submitted: May 8, 2005 10:22 PM

a) Summary Ranking
Evaluation Category Enter Your Score
Is the topic of the paper appropriate for presentation at Fusion2005? (1 = low, 5 = high) 5
Is the topic important to colleagues working in the field? (1 = low, 5 = high) 5
How would you rate the originality ? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 4
How would you rate the clarity of the paper? (1 = low, 5 = high) (1-5) 2
Rate the technical correctness (1= poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 3
Rate the references (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) (1-5) 3
Recommendation (1 = accept, 2 = accept with changes, 3 = reject) (1-3) 2
b) Detailed Comments
The presentation is very poor, the problem definition (in mathematical terms) and the models are unclear. For example, take the algorithm in Sec.3.1 - it i unclear what exactly is it solving, what is the input and output, and why this is being done.