Moderated by Stephen Muggleton.

Hideo Bannai, Yoshinori Tamada, Osamu Maruyama, and Satoru Miyano

HypothesisCreator: Concepts for Accelerating the Computational Knowledge Discovery Process

The article mentioned above has been submitted to the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and the present page contains the review discussion. Click here for more explanations and for the webpage of theauthors: Hideo Bannai, Yoshinori Tamada, Osamu Maruyama, and Satoru Miyano.

Overview of interactions

N:o Question Answer(s) Continued discussion
1 15.10  Anonymous Referee 1
2 15.10  Anonymous Referee 2

Q1. Anonymous Referee 1 (15.10):

Recommendation: This is an excellent paper and can be accepted for ETAI as it is.

However, it seems to me that it would be useful if the authors add some words about previous papers in this field in order to compare the suggested method and known ones.

Q2. Anonymous Referee 2 (15.10):

The paper is excellent and should be accepted, with minor revisions. These are detailed below.

In the Introduction the abbreviation KDD is introduced. Please give the phrase of which it is an abbreviation. Probably it is "Knowledge Discovery from Databases". But how is the reader expected to know this?

Does the first of the three bulleted points claim that the selection and/or development of appropriate algorithms is unimportant for computer-aided solution of discovery problems? If so, this is depressing news for those AI workers who currently specialize in the development of improved algorithms and principles of selection. Do the authors here suggest that these colleagues are wasting their time because numerous partially adequate methods exist already?

If so, then compelling arguments should be given to support the implication that the severe gaps which exist in the capabilities of existing algorithms (such as inability to structure a problem by automatic discovery of intermediate concepts from raw data) can never be filled.

The authors should consider whether the left hand column of Table 1 should be headed "Components ... " rather than "Elements ..." The latter term suggests that the items cannot be further decomposed.

In the caption to Table 2 the MCC is defined as an algebraic ratio, from which the reader will be able to confirm that it indeed the bare prediction accuracy that is here measured. There is in this an implicit assumption that differential misclassification costs (i.e. that cost of a false positive is the same as cost of a false negative) can be safely made in this case, and that MCC can therefore be taken as an adequate measure of the quality of the classifier's performance. The author should draw this assumption to the reader's attention, and explain why in this application the penalties of predicting that a sequence contains a signal, when in fact it does not, are approximately equal to the penalties of failing to predict that a sequence contains a signal when in fact it does.

In general summary, after attention to the need for minor revision, this paper deserves publication and makes an important contribution.


Background: Review Protocol Pages and the ETAI

This Review Protocol Page (RPP) is a part of the webpage structure for the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, or ETAI. The ETAI is an electronic journal that uses the Internet medium not merely for distributing the articles, but also for a novel, two-stage review procedure. The first review phase is open and allows the peer community to ask questions to the author and to create a discussion about the contribution. The second phase - called refereeing in the ETAI - is like conventional journal refereeing except that the major part of the required feedback is supposed to have occurred already in the first, review phase.

The referees make a recommendation whether the article is to be accepted or declined, as usual. The article and the discussion remain on-line regardless of whether the article was accepted or not. Additional questions and discussion after the acceptance decision are welcomed.

The Review Protocol Page is used as a working structure for the entire reviewing process. During the first (review) phase it accumulates the successive debate contributions. If the referees make specific comments about the article in the refereeing phase, then those comments are posted on the RPP as well, but without indicating the identity of the referee. (In many cases the referees may return simply an " accept" or " decline" recommendation, namely if sufficient feedback has been obtained already in the review phase).