31 lines
3.6 KiB
TeX
31 lines
3.6 KiB
TeX
%root: main.tex
|
|
\definecolor{GrayRew}{gray}{0.85}
|
|
\newcommand{\RCOMMENT}[1]{\medskip\noindent \begin{tabular}{|p{\linewidth-3ex}}\rowcolor{GrayRew} #1 \end{tabular}\smallskip\\}
|
|
\section{Rebuttal}
|
|
This paper is a resubmission, and being such, we use this section to document the changes that have been made since our prior submission, and in particular, how we have addressed reviewer critiques.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Meta Review}
|
|
\RCOMMENT{Problem definition not stated rigorously nor motivated. Discussion needed on the standard PDB approach vs your approach.}
|
|
We made the decision to rewrite \Cref{sec:intro} to specifically address this concern. The opening paragraph precisely and formally states the query evaluation problem in \abbrBPDB\xplural. We use a series of problem statements to clearly define the problem we are addressing as it relates to the query evaluation problem. We have included significant discussion of the standard approach, e.g. see the paragraph \textbf{Relationship to Set-Probabilistic Query Evaluation} on page 4.
|
|
|
|
\RCOMMENT{Definition 2.6 on reduced BIDB polynomials seem not the right tool for the studied problem.}
|
|
We have chosen to stick with a less formal, ad-hoc definition (please see \Cref{def:reduced-poly} and \Cref{def:reduced-bi-poly}) as suggested by both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2.
|
|
|
|
\RCOMMENT{The paper is very difficult to read. Improvements are needed in particular for the presentation of the approximation results and their proofs. Also for the notation. Missing definitions for used notions need to be added. Ideally use one instead of three query languages (UCQ, RA+, SPJU).}
|
|
\AH{How have we handled the presentation of the approximation results and their proofs?}
|
|
We have chosen one specific query language throughout the paper ($\raPlus$). We have also made a concerted effort to use clean, defined, non-ambiguous notation. To the best of our examination, all notation conflicts have been addressed and definitions for used notions are added (see e.g. \Cref{def:Gk} appears before \Cref{lem:3m-G2} and \Cref{lem:lin-sys}.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Reviewer 1}
|
|
\RCOMMENT{l.24 "is \#W[1]-hard": parameterized by what?}
|
|
While the above reference does not exist in the revised \Cref{sec:intro} anymore, all theorem statements and claims on \sharpwone runtime have been stated in a way so as to avoid ambiguity in the parameter. Please see e.g. \Cref{thm:k-match-hard} and \Cref{thm:mult-p-hard-result}
|
|
|
|
\RCOMMENT{You might want to explain your title somewhere (probably in the introduction): in the end, what exactly should be considered harmful and why?}
|
|
We have modified the title to better aptly describe our body of work.
|
|
|
|
\RCOMMENT{l.45 when discussing Dalvi and Suciu's dichotomy, you might want to mention that they consider *data complexity*. Currently the second sentence of your introduction ("take a query Q and a pdb D") suggests that you are considering combined complexity.}
|
|
We have made an explicit mention of data complexity when alluding to Dalvi and Suciu's dichotomy. We have further rewritten \Cref{sec:intro} in such a way as to explicitly note the type(s) of complexity we are considering.
|
|
|
|
\RCOMMENT{l.51 "Consider ... and tuples are independent random event": so this is actually a set PDB... You might want to use an example where the input PDB is actually a bag PDB. The last sentence before the example makes the reader *expect* that the example will be of a bag PDB that is not a set PDB}
|
|
Our revision has removed the example referred to above. While the paper considers predominantly set-\abbrPDB inputs to queries, we have concluded this not to be limiting. Please see \Cref{footnote:set-not-limit} on \Cpageref{footnote:set-not-limit}.
|
|
|