From owner-reliable_computing Sun May 31 19:28:38 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA00309
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:35:55 -0500
Received: from into.nit.spb.su by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA00303
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:35:30 -0500
Received: from slava.UUCP (uucp@localhost)
by into.nit.spb.su (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id PAA12752
for reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu; Sun, 31 May 1998 15:32:29 +0400 (MSD)
(envelope-from slava!slava.nit.spb.su!nest)
Received: by slava.nit.spb.su (dMail for DOS v1.23, 15Jun94);
Sun, 31 May 1998 15:28:38 +0400
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Message-Id:
Organization: Slava Nesterov
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 15:28:38 +0400 (MSD)
Reply-To: nest [at] into [dot] nit.spb.su
From: "Slava Nesterov"
X-Mailer: dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v1.23]
Subject: email problems
Lines: 14
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear colleagues,
>From May 17 till May 30 I had big technical problems with my email
system. It seems some messages were lost. Please send them again.
In the future if my usual email address
nest [at] into [dot] nit.spb.su
will not work properly, please use the alternate one
intcom [at] glasnet [dot] ru
Sorry for inconvenience.
Best regards,
Slava Nesterov
From owner-reliable_computing Wed Jun 3 09:18:34 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA01207
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:49:35 -0500
Received: from sovcom.relcom.ru by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA01201
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:49:30 -0500
Received: from globlab (uucp@localhost) by sovcom.relcom.ru (8.8.8/Relcom-2A) with UUCP
id FAA29560 for reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu;Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:46:52 +0400 (MSD)
Message-Id: <199806030146.FAA29560 [at] sovcom [dot] relcom.ru>
Received: by sovcom.KIAE.su (UUMAIL/2.0); Wed, 3 Jun 98 04:46:51 +0300
Received: by globlab.msk.su (UUPC/@ v5.09gamma, 14Mar93);
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:18:34 +0400
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
From: "Alexander G. Yakovlev"
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 05:18:34 +0400
Subject: News concerning the journal "Reliable Computing"
Lines: 48
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
June 3, 1998
Dear colleagues,
I would like to inform about some facts concerning the journal
RELIABLE COMPUTING.
1) This is a short list of main URL's related to the journal.
The Kluwer's home page of the journal:
http://www.wkap.nl/journalhome.htm/1385-3139
Prof. R. Baker Kearfott, the official representative in the
Western Hemisphere:
http://interval.usl.edu/kearfott.html
Prof. Dr. Juergen Wolff von Gudenberg, the official representa-
tive in Europe:
http://www-info2.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/staff/wvg
Interval Computations Website, under supervision of Prof.
Vladik Kreinovich:
http://cs.utep.edu/interval-comp/main.html
2) You can order a free sample copy of the journal via the
Kluwer's home page of the journal (its URL see before). Also you can
find there (as well as at Interval Computations Website) complete
tables of contents of the journal.
3) The journal is now abstracted/indexed in: CompactMATH,
INSPEC Information Services, MATH, Mathematical Reviews, Zentral-
blatt fuer Mathematic/Mathematics Abstracts.
4) A new discount has been established for a complete set of
back issues (1991-1996), including all supplements. Now it is equal
to 30% (before - to 15%). Now individuals can purchase the complete
set (22 issues and 4 supplements) for $263 only. On this subject
please contact to Dr. Vyacheslav M. Nesterov, the Editor-in-Chief
(nest [at] into [dot] nit.spb.su. intcom [at] glasnet [dot] ru).
Sincerely yours,
Alexander Yakovlev,
Managing Editor
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 5 08:55:36 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA02467
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:13:24 -0500
Received: from exchange1.onr.navy.mil by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA02461
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:11:01 -0500
Received: by exchange1.onr.navy.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
id ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:57:08 -0400
Message-Id:
From: KOSTOFR [at] ONR [dot] NAVY.MIL
To: adrian.thomas [at] zoo [dot] ox.ac.uk, aeainfo [at] ctrvax [dot] vanderbilt.edu,
aeisner [at] aom [dot] pace.edu, aestamps [at] ix [dot] netcom.com, aestamps [at] ix [dot] netcom.com,
afagen [at] biosun [dot] harvard.edu, afmr [at] dc [dot] sba.com, agar [at] fs4 [dot] ma.man.ac.uk,
agc [at] nerc [dot] ac.uk, agold [at] nsf [dot] gov, ahmcgreg [at] med [dot] cornell.edu,
ahra [at] world [dot] std.com, ahughes [at] iglou [dot] com, ahusain [at] nmo [dot] jpl.nasa.gov,
aimagazine [at] aaai [dot] org, aipinfo [at] aip [dot] org, airboy [at] physics [dot] ucsb.edu,
ajp [at] Psych [dot] Org, akeller [at] nsf [dot] gov, abaciocc [at] nas [dot] edu, asb2 [at] lehigh [dot] edu,
alanberman [at] aol [dot] com, aboutz@noesis-inc.com, ateich [at] aaas [dot] org,
alain [at] ai [dot] iit.nrc.ca, cura [at] fastnet [dot] co.uk
Subject: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:55:36 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
From: Ronald N. Kostoff/ ONR
To: Distribution
The following web site announcement describes a new monograph on
"SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION". Feel free to distribute this
announcement to members of your organization, and to other
colleagues in the broader technical community.
RNK
WEB SITE ANNOUNCEMENT
I. JUNE 1998 ADDITION - SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
A monograph entitled "SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION" was
added to the web site http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/index.html
in June 1998. This thirty page document describes two novel
complementary approaches for systematically enhancing the process
of innovation and discovery. One approach is workshop-based and
the other is literature-based. Both approaches have the common
feature of exploring knowledge from very disparate technical
disciplines and technologies, and transferring insights and
understanding from one or more disparate technical areas to other
technical areas. While either approach can be performed
independently to enable innovation and discovery, it is highly
recommended that the approaches be combined into a single process.
This integrated approach utilizes the strengths of each component
technique to provide a synergy which can lead more efficiently to
innovation than the sum of the two approaches performed separately.
It has the potential to be a major breakthrough for the systematic
promotion of innovation and discovery.
II. APRIL 1998 ADDITION - SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY METRICS
A monograph entitled "SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY METRICS" was added
to this web site in April 1998. The document describes:
a) why S&T assessment and evaluation have become important;
b) why metrics have become important for quality S&T evaluation;
c) what types of metrics are available for S&T evaluation, and
d) how metrics have been and can be applied to prospective and
retrospective S&T assessment and evaluation.
Many case studies of metrics applications are summarized. The
monograph discusses how metrics can be integrated with other
evaluation tools to address the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). This comprehensive
metrics monograph is self-contained, with 14 Appendices, and can
serve as an information resource with over 5600 text and suggested
reading references.
III. AUGUST 1997 ADDITIONS - ASSESSMENT/ PEER REVIEW/ ROADMAPS
There are three other documents on this web site of potential
interest to science and technology managers/ sponsors/
administrators/ planners/ transitioners/ researchers and
developers/ evaluators and assessors. They are:
1) The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment
2) Research Program Peer Review: Principles, Practices, Protocols
3) Science and Technology Roadmaps
All three documents:
i) provide extensive background on the importance of the topic;
ii) present the theory and principles underlying successful
utilization of the methods and techniques discussed;
iii) describe many case studies of successful applications, and
iv) provide thousands of useful references.
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff
Office of Naval Research
kostofr [at] onr [dot] navy.mil
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 5 09:36:49 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA02859
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:36:51 -0500
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA02849
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing); Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:36:49 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:36:49 -0500
From: "Kearfott R. Baker"
Message-Id: <199806051936.AA02849 [at] interval [dot] usl.edu>
To: reliable_computing
Subject: MISC'99 First announcement and CALL for PAPERS
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
----- Begin Included Message -----
From vehi [at] silver [dot] udg.es Fri Jun 5 10:02:15 1998
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:49:28 +0200
From: Josep Vehi
Reply-To: vehi [at] silver [dot] udg.es
Organization: Intelligent Systems and Control Engineering Group. University of Girona
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: na.digest@na-net.ornl.gov, opt-net@zib-berlin.de,
im-net-digest [at] iwr [dot] uni-heidelberg.de, automatica [at] sanson [dot] dit.upm.es,
eia [at] silver [dot] udg.es, owner-reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: MISC'99 First announcement and CALL for PAPERS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 4035
MISC'99
1ST ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
Workshop on:
Applications of Interval Analysis to Systems and Control
with special emphasis on recent advances in Modal Interval Analysis
24-26 February 1999
University of Girona
Girona, Spain
Presentation
During the last years, Interval Analysis has been widely applied to
solve open problems in Systems and Control Engineering. So, analysis and
synthesis of robust controllers for uncertain plants or fuzzy inference
has been stated from the interval point of view. Other fields where the
use of Interval Analysis is increasing are qualitative, semiqualitative
and interval simulation and its application to fault detection and
diagnosis and systems identification.
All these applications benefit of the ability of intervals to manipulate
imprecise data, keep track of truncation and round-off errors and
reliability, but they suffer the main weakness of the classical Interval
Analysis: too conservative results are often obtained when the range of
a function is computed.
The aims of this workshop are:
1.to present recent advances in applications of Interval Analysis in
Control, but focusing on the limitations and drawbacks of Classical
Interval Analysis,
2.to present recent advances on he Modal Interval Analysis, a new
paradigm on uncertainty representation, and some of its lastest
applications on control,
3.to analise and discuss, in the context of Modal Interval Analysis,
open problems in the field of Control Systems where Classical Interval
Analysis is used and fails or seems to be limited.
Topics
The workshop will focus on four main topics:
Modal Interval Analysis: Modal Interval Analysis will be presented with
recent results and applications.
Open Problems: Authors are encouraged to summit theoretical or practical
open problems which may be considered as interval problems, but
their resolution goes beyond Classical Interval Analysis.
Interval Applications to Control: The following topics will be
considered but not restricted to robust control design,
identification, fuzzy control, robustness analysis, signal
processing,...,etc.
Interval Simulation: Interval modelling. Qualitative, semi-qualitative
and interval simulation. Applications to fault detection and
diagnosis.
International Program Committee:
Josep Aguilar-Martin Spain
Ernest Gardenyes (Chairman), Spain
J|ergen Garloff, Germany
Luc Jaulin, France
Vladik Kreinovich, USA
Victor Krymsky, Russia
Svetoslav Markov, Bulgaria
Mario Milanese, Italia
Joseba Quevedo, Spain
Josi Rodellar, Spain
Sergei Shary, Rusia
Louise Trave-Massuyes, France
Eric Walter, France
Local organisers:
Dr. Miguel A. Sainz e-mail:sainz [at] ima [dot] udg.es
Dr. Josep Vehi e-mail:vehi [at] eia [dot] udg.es
Paper submission
Five copies of full papers of no more than 15 pages including abstract,
references, figures, and tables (one column format, 11pt Times font, and
A4 paper) should to be received by conference organizers by June 20. All
papers must be submitted in hard copy form. No paper will be accepted by
fax or in electronic form.
Submission adress
Dr. Josep Vehm
Control Engineering and Intelligent Systems Group
Campus Montilivi. Edifici P-II
University of Girona
E-17071 Girona (Spain)
Important dates
Now : Reply form
August 30, 1998 : Full paper submissions
September 30, 1998 : Notification of acceptance/rejection
November 20, 1988 : Camera-ready copy due & Registration
February 22-24, 1999 : Workshop will be held
More information and Reply form on: http://eia.udg.es/~vehi/misc99.htm
----- End Included Message -----
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Apr 3 13:30:16 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA11026
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:29:44 -0500
Received: from riscfo (riscfo.spfo.unibo.it) by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA11020
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:29:27 -0500
Received: from [137.204.203.22] by riscfo (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03)
id AA04674; Thu, 28 May 98 11:20:09 -2300
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980403113016.0068d324 [at] mailserver [dot] di.unipi.it>
X-Sender: bista [at] mailserver [dot] di.unipi.it (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 11:30:16 +0200
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: bista [at] di [dot] unipi.it
Subject: CFP: CP98 workshop on Modeling and Computing with Concurrent
Constraint Programming
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CALL FOR PAPERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CP98 Workshop
on
Modeling and Computing with Concurrent Constraint Programming
(http://www.ueda.info.waseda.ac.jp/cp98-ccp/)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pisa, Italy
30 October 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(in conjunction with the fourth International Conference on Principles
and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP98))
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
The workshop is intended to be a forum of discussions on the practical
aspects of Concurrent Constraint Programming (CCP), a simple and
elegant formalism for modelling concurrent, parallel, and distributed
computation. Topics covered by the workshop include:
* Experiences with programming in CCP framework
* Novel applications of the CCP framework
* Novel implementation techniques of the CCP family of languages
* Language constructs for addressing novel applications
* Comparison between CCP and other programming paradigms
The workshop will consist of the presentation of accepted papers and
discussions about selected topics.
Organizing committee (in alphabetical order)
* Andreas Podelski (Max-Planck-Institut, podelski@mpi-sb.mpg.de)
* Vijay Saraswat (AT&T, vijay [at] chit [dot] saraswat.org)
* Kazunori Ueda (Waseda Univ., ueda [at] ueda [dot] info.waseda.ac.jp)
(contact)
Paper Submission
Authors are invited to send manuscripts by e-mail in a self-contained
PostScript file (gzipped and uuencoded) to the organizers.
E-mail submissions should be sent to ALL of the following three
adresses:
ueda [at] ueda [dot] info.waseda.ac.jp, podelski@mpi-sb.mpg.de,
vijay [at] chit [dot] saraswat.org
The length guidelines are 10-12 pages in 11-point font and 4000 words.
In addition, a separate e-mail message should be sent containing the
paper title and a 150-word abstract, authors, keywords, postal
address, e-mail address and fax number.
Publication
We plan to publish all the accepted papers on the workshop web site.
We will also distribute a hard-copy version of the proceedings at the
workshop.
Important Dates
AUGUST 15, 1998 PAPER SUBMISSION DEADLINE
September 10, 1998 Acceptance decisions
October 5, 1998 Final copy due
October 30, 1998 CP98 Workshop
Workshop URL: http://www.ueda.info.waseda.ac.jp/cp98-ccp/
CP98 URL: http://www.di.unipi.it/cp98/
From owner-reliable_computing Mon Jun 15 01:58:09 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA11873
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:00:51 -0500
Received: from frank.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.192.9]) by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA11867
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:58:27 -0500
Received: from gromit.cs.bham.ac.uk (actually host gromit)
by frank.cs.bham.ac.uk with SMTP (MMTA);
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:55:24 +0100
Received: by gromit.cs.bham.ac.uk (SMI-8.6/client/1.2) id AAA29506;
Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:58:09 +0100
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:58:09 +0100
From: A.Sloman [at] cs [dot] bham.ac.uk
Message-Id: <29506.199806142358 [at] gromit [dot] cs.bham.ac.uk>
To: THEORY-A [at] LISTSERV [dot] NODAK.EDU, amast [at] cs [dot] utwente.nl,
cellular-automata [at] BUPHY [dot] BU.EDU, colt [at] cs [dot] uiuc.edu, concurrency [at] cwi [dot] nl,
connectionists [at] cs [dot] cmu.edu, dbworld [at] cs [dot] wisc.edu,
evonet [at] dcs [dot] napier.ac.uk, ga-list [at] aic [dot] nrl.navy.mil,
gann-list [at] cs [dot] iastate.edu, genetic-programming [at] cs [dot] stanford.edu,
hybrid-list [at] cs [dot] ua.edu, mfpsmail [at] math [dot] tulane.edu, ml [at] ics [dot] uci.edu,
reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu, sea [at] sna [dot] co.umist.ac.uk
Subject: Chair in computer science at Birmingham University
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
[Apologies to anyone who gets this more than once.]
I am pleased to announce that as part of the growing support for the
School of Computer Science the University of Birmingham is advertising
a new professorship. The post is available as soon as possible after
the interviews (to be held in October).
For anyone unfamiliar with the UK academic structure, I should explain
that a professor holds a senior tenured post. So applicants should
normally already have substantial post-doctoral experience of research
and teaching.
If you know of anyone who might be a strong candidate, please pass on
the following.
=======================================================================
THE UNIVERSITY
OF BIRMINGHAM
SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
Applications are invited for a newly established Chair in the School of
Computer Science, tenable as soon as possible. There are no restrictions
in area of research interest. Applicants from all branches of Computer
Science will be considered.
Candidates should have an outstanding research record and be able to
provide leadership in research and teaching. The successful candidate
will also be expected to share in the management in the School.
FURTHER PARTICULARS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:
Mr P J F Scott
Director of Staffing Services
The University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
England
TELEPHONE NO. +44 121-414-6478
FAX NO. +44 121-414-7043
EMAIL P.J.F.Scott [at] bham [dot] ac.uk
The closing date for applications is 31 July 1998. (Late applications
may be considered.) It is expected that interviews will be held on 28th
October.
Further information about the School is available via the School web
page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/
Further information about this post and instructions for applying can
be found in postscript and plain text files located in the directory
ftp://ftp.cs.bham.ac.uk/pub/dist/info/chair98/
For more information on the University see
http://www.bham.ac.uk/
INFORMAL ENQUIRIES MAY BE MADE IN CONFIDENCE TO:
The Head of School
Professor Achim Jung,
School of Computer Science,
The University of Birmingham
Birmingham B15 2TT
UK
Tel: +44 121 414 3711
Email: A.Jung [at] cs [dot] bham.ac.uk
=======================================================================
I am also willing to answer any questions, as is Professor John Barnden
Email J.A.Barnden [at] cs [dot] bham.ac.uk.
===
Aaron Sloman, ( http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/ )
Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science
School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
EMAIL A.Sloman [at] cs [dot] bham.ac.uk
Phone: +44-121-414-4775 (Sec 3711) Fax: +44-121-414-4281
From owner-reliable_computing Mon Jun 15 09:12:21 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA12876
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:36:43 -0500
Received: from washington.engr.ukans.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA12870
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:36:37 -0500
Received: from elmo.nwis.net by washington.engr.ukans.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id JAA23499; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:35:37 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980615141221.00793ac0 [at] eecs [dot] ukans.edu>
X-Sender: bdoyle [at] eecs [dot] ukans.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:12:21 -0500
To: cellular-automata [at] BUPHY [dot] BU.EDU, colt [at] cs [dot] uiuc.edu, concurrency [at] cwi [dot] nl,
connectionists [at] cs [dot] cmu.edu, dbworld [at] cs [dot] wisc.edu,
evonet [at] dcs [dot] napier.ac.uk, ga-list [at] aic [dot] nrl.navy.mil,
gann-list [at] cs [dot] iastate.edu, genetic-programming [at] cs [dot] stanford.edu,
hybrid-list [at] cs [dot] ua.edu, mfpsmail [at] math [dot] tulane.edu, ml [at] ics [dot] uci.edu,
reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu, sea [at] sna [dot] co.umist.ac.uk
From: Brian Doyle
Subject: Employer Needed!
In-Reply-To: <29506.199806142358 [at] gromit [dot] cs.bham.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Hello,
I am a recent graduate from the University of Kansas in Computer Science.
I am looking for employment in AI programming. Can anyone give me a lead
to any companies that might be employing in this field?
My resume is on my web page.
http://www.eecs.ukans.edu/~bdoyle
email: bdoyle [at] eecs [dot] ukans.edu
Thanks in advance!
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 23 14:45:11 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA20067
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:42:07 -0500
Received: from nsc.ru ([194.226.160.65]) by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA20061
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:40:28 -0500
Received: from hooker.iis.nsk.su (hooker.iis.nsk.su [194.226.177.235]) by nsc.ru (8.8.8/1.37)
id OAA09922; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:39:13 +0700 (NSD)
Message-Id: <199806230739.OAA09922 [at] nsc [dot] ru>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Alexander Semenov"
Organization: Russian Research Institute of AI
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:39:11 +6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: UniCalc- a solver of nonlinear equations
Reply-To: semenov [at] iis [dot] nsk.su
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1)
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Apologies if you received this message more than once.
New releases of UniCalc - a solver of algebraic nonlinear equations
and inequalities - are available. The solver is based on a combination
of interval mathematics, interval constraint propagation and computer
algebra. UniCalc can handle both real-valued and integer-valued
problems, as well as problems involving variables of both types.
The following types of problems can be solved with UniCalc: linear and
nonlinear systems of equations and inequalities, problems with imprecise or
interval data, Diophantine equations, optimization problems, etc. UniCalc has a
friendly user interface and a convenient and simple input language.
You are welcome to visit our homepage to know more about UniCalc and
download the latest demo versions. The address of our web site is
http://www.rriai.org.ru/UniCalc/
Demo versions of UniCalc can be also obtained from anonymous ftp site:
ftp://ftp.rriai.org.ru/pub/unicalc/
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us:
e-mail: unicalc [at] rriai [dot] org.ru
Thank you for your attention.
Alexander Semenov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Semenov Novosibirsk Division of the Russian
Research Institute of Artificial Intelligence
tel. (7 383 2) 34 29 91 pr. ak. Lavrent'eva, 6
fax (7 383 2) 32 83 59 Novosibirsk
e-mail semenov [at] iis [dot] nsk.su Russia, 630090
URL http://www.rriai.org.ru/~semenov/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 23 15:53:37 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA20525
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:18:13 -0500
Received: from iph.bio.acad.bg by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA20519
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:17:54 -0500
Received: from biomath.bio.acad.bg (biomath.bio.acad.bg [194.141.4.32]) by iph.bio.acad.bg (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA17844 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:05:05 +0300
Message-Id: <199806231105.OAA17844 [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Svetoslav Markov"
Organization: Institute of Biophysics - BAS
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:53:37 +0200
Subject: an open letter to the guest editors of RC 4,1
Reply-To: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
X-Confirm-Reading-To: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
X-Pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Guest Editors of Reliable Computing 4,1 (Student issue)
I am reviewer of Zentralblatt fuer Mathematik and I received a request to
review the following two papers fron RC 4,1:
Hu, Ch. et al. : An interval polynomial interpolation problem and its Lagrange
solution, 27--38;
Davis, C. : A new application of local minima of interval functions:
Interval-valued fuzzy control, 99--101.
I must say that for first time in my practice as reviewer of Zlb. (I am
reviewer for more than 20 years) I have difficulties with writing a review. A
review should briefly report on the mathematical results in the paper or on a
software tool reported. What should be done if there are no such
results at all?
As a member of the Editorial board I am concerned with the fate of the journal
if similar papers continue to appear. What will reviewers say about such
papers? What will a reader say after several hours of rearing to establish that
there is nothing in the paper?
As far as I remember I was a referee of a previous version of the first paper and
I did not recommend publishing. How did it happen that the paper appeared
without my knowledge? I really wonder if there has been another referee at all?
Let me just mention a striking ignorance: half of the references are not mentioned
in the text.
As for the second "paper", I already wrote some time ago to the Editor in Chief
that all materials in "Letters to the Editor" should be clearly distinguished as
nonscientific papers so that they do not undergo scientific reviewing. Probably
the same should hold for papers appearing in similar sections like "Short
Communications". At present these papers have the same format as a scientific
paper. They undergo reviewing and they are probably used for scientific
nominations. Is this correct?
Svetoslav Markov
-- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- +
Dr. Svetoslav Markov
Section "Biomathematics", Inst. of phone: +3592-713-3704, +3592-707460,
Mathematics and Computer Sci., fax: +3592-971-3649,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, e-mail: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
"Acad. G. Bonchev" st., block 8, smarkov [at] bgearn [dot] acad.bg
BG-1113 Sofia, BULGARIA
home address: 11 Mizia, 1124 Sofia, tel. +3592-444651
-- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- +
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 23 08:32:12 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA20934
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:32:36 -0500
Received: from cs.utep.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA20928
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:32:25 -0500
Received: from earth.cs.utep.edu by cs.utep.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA17768; Tue, 23 Jun 98 14:32:12 MDT
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 14:32:12 MDT
From: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
Message-Id: <9806232032.AA17768 [at] cs [dot] utep.edu>
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: Svetoslav Markov's email
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Friends,
First of all, I want to thank Professor Markov for his emotional and
thought-provoking letter. I think it is very important for all of us
in the area of interval computations (and its generalizations covered
in the journal) to feel emotionally connected to the area. As I see it,
his letter raises important questions that are worth discussing, much
more general questions than whether the editors did a good or sloppy
work.
As one of the editors of the student issue in which these papers has
appeared, I am currently preparing a detailed reply. It may take
a day or two because this email does touch on important issues about
quality and scope of our journal, and I want to be as clear on this all
as possible.
Vladik
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 23 11:30:47 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA21340
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:30:48 -0500
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA21330
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:30:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:30:47 -0500
From: "Kearfott R. Baker"
Message-Id: <199806232130.AA21330 [at] interval [dot] usl.edu>
To: reliable_computing
Subject: Subscription verification: Thank you for your cooperation
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear list members:
Thank you for your cooperation in the recent semi-annual
address verification process. The following addresses elicited
"unknown user" responses, and I have removed them. Please inform
me if you know of updated addresses.
angelo [at] fwi [dot] uva.nl
akritas [at] ukanvax [dot] bitnet
brcb [at] di [dot] ufpe.br
bpkice [at] u [dot] washington.edu
wkuhn [at] math [dot] gatech.edu
vstahl [at] risc [dot] uni-linz.ac.at
zm [at] ecs [dot] soton.ac.uk
grot [at] alpha [dot] informatik.uni-bonn.de
francd [at] ireq [dot] ca
mackenb [at] mac [dot] cs.uni-duesseldorf.de
georgig [at] tor [dot] numetrix.com
sakurai [at] uia [dot] ua.ac.be
sp36b8629f [at] colon [dot] net
spanish [at] altavista [dot] net
The following messages elicited "unknown host" responses, and I have
removed them (with further action as indicated). Please inform me
if you know of updated addresses.
crocco [at] dino [dot] conicit.ve
neli [at] BGEARN [dot] BITNET (Changed to neli [at] TREARN [dot] BITNET)
johnston [at] ch [dot] hp.com
EPOPOVA [at] BGEARN [dot] BITNET (Changed to EPOPOVA [at] TREARN [dot] BITNET)
dwelling [at] msagate [dot] mdhc.mdc.com
Best regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk [at] usl [dot] edu (318) 482-5346 (fax)
(318) 482-5270 (work) (318) 981-9744 (home)
URL: http://interval.usl.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Southwestern Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 23 09:58:29 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA21668
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:16:03 -0500
Received: from Happy.DT.UH.EDU by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA21662
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:16:01 -0500
Received: by happy.dt.uh.edu (950413.SGI.8.6.12/940406.SGI.AUTO)
id QAA13365; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:58:29 -0700
From: "Chenyi Hu"
Message-Id: <9806231658.ZM13363 [at] happy [dot] dt.uh.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:58:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
"Svetoslav Markov's email" (Jun 23, 2:32pm)
References: <9806232032.AA17768 [at] cs [dot] utep.edu>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail)
To: Vladik Kreinovich ,
reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: Re: Svetoslav Markov's email
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Friends,
Dr. Markov has specificly mentioned a paper authored by three
undergraduate students with me in his recent e-mail. I would
be happy to send a copy of the paper to anyone who needs to
evaluate the undergraduate student project. We very appreciate
the superior job done by the anonymous referees and the editors.
All of the three students have successfully complelted their
undergraduate study. Two of them are working on their graduate
degrees at the top universities of the U.S. now. The other student
has been employed immediately after her graduation.
Yours sincerely,
Chenyi Hu
--
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Computer and Mathematical Sciences
Center for Computational Science and Advanced Distributed Simulation
University of Houston-Downtown Phone: 713 221-8414
One Main Street Fax: 713 221-8086
Houston, Texas 77002 E-mail: CHu [at] uh [dot] edu
http://happy.dt.uh.edu/~hu/Hu.html
From owner-reliable_computing Wed Jun 24 05:10:31 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA22428
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:11:09 -0500
Received: from cs.utep.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA22422
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:10:46 -0500
Received: from earth.cs.utep.edu by cs.utep.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA22295; Wed, 24 Jun 98 11:10:32 MDT
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 11:10:31 MDT
From: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
Message-Id: <9806241710.AA22295 [at] cs [dot] utep.edu>
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: Re: an open letter to the guest editors of RC 4,1
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Colleagues,
First of all, I want to thank Professor Markov for his concerned and
thought-provoking letter. I think it is very important for all of us
in the area of interval computations (and its generalizations covered
in the journal) to feel deeply connected to the area.
His letter raises important questions that are worth discussing.
Let me try to answer his concerns and related questions one by one.
1) SHOULD WE PUBLISH APPLICATION PAPERS WHICH CONTAIN NO NEW
MATHEMATICAL RESULTS?
One of the two papers that Professor Markov believes to be inappropriate
in Reliable Computing is a paper by C. Davis "A new application of
local minima of interval functions: interval-valued fuzzy control",
a 3-page paper published in the Short Communications section of the
student issue 98,1. For those who did not read this paper, I will
briefly explain its contents: it describes, in brief, an application of
a known interval-mathematics related algorithm (namely, an algorithm
for finding local minima of an interval function) to a new area, in
which this algorithm has not been applied before, namely, to the area
of intelligent control. This paper does not contain any new
mathematical results; however, since the application area is new, and
it required some intellectual effort to find this new interesting (and
successful) application, the
referees believed that this paper (after appropriate revisions)
would be of interest to the readership of the journal.
As one of the editors of this student issue, I was supervising the
refereeing of this paper, so I would like to
explain the reasons why we included Davis' paper in this issue.
>From my point of view, the ultimate goal of numerical computations is to be
able to solve applied problems and to actually solve them. I
personally come from a mathematical background, and I like interesting
and technically non-trivial mathematical results. These results are,
of course, not only esthetically pleasing: they often bring important
insights and promote our understanding of the world. (In particular, I
immensely enjoy the algebraic foundational papers on interval
mathematics which Professor Markov and his students write.)
To me,
the ultimate test of these mathematical results and related software
is applications to real-world problems. Some mathematical results are
directly useful, some provide ideas which only later on may lead to
applications, some results (such as NP-hardness) describe limitations
on potential applications, etc., but to me, it is important that
somehow now or eventually the results must be related to computations
(because otherwise, they seem to be unrelated to the area of numerical
computations).
In rare situation, all is done in one paper, which:
* starts with a practical problem;
* formulates this problem in mathematical terms;
* solves this (previously unsolved) problem; and
* applies the mathematical solution to the original practical problem.
I really enjoy such papers (and some papers of Prof. Markov are like
that), but more often, all four steps are done separately, and all
four elements of this chain are important for the resulting
application. My heart jumps for joy when I see a good theoretical
result; but it also jumps for joy when I learn about a new unexpected
practical application of the existing methods, because at this moment,
the chain that leads to application is completed.
(Let me also restate this in an other way:
* I like it when to solve a new practical problem, we have to develop
a new mathematical method. Such problems are rare gems and important
challenges which drive applied mathematics. The resulting
technically complicated papers are of great interest.
* I also like it when for a new practical problem, for which none of
the existing methods seems to be routinely applicable, there suddenly
appears a simple idea of how to solve it. The resulting short and not
technically complicated papers are elegant and nice.
With respect to non-applied mathematics, this distinction was well
described by Littlewood in his well-known book Mathematical Miscellany,
where, in particular, he argues, by using an example from complex
analysis, that a proof of one or two lines may be enough for a
Ph.D., if it is unexpected enough and solves an old-standing problem.)
The importance of applications is emphasized in
the journal's Aims and Scopes statement
(published in every issue of RC), according to which
the journal "includes various items
in the field of theoretical research, computer tools, applications,
interdisciplinary research, and other relevant areas".
The importance of applications was also specifically emphasized by
Kluwer representatives during the talks which brought our journal
under Kluwer. I strongly
believe that there are already many exciting applications of
interval computations which are largely unknown, and there is an even
larger potential of applying these methods to different areas.
In view of this importance of applications, when we solicited material
for the student issue, we actively solicited all kinds of application
papers, not only application papers with new mathematical results;
we also actively solicited papers from
those researchers who did not prove any new mathematical results, but
who have the experience of successfully using existing interval
methods to solve new problems in unexpected application areas.
To make this position more convincing, let me give you a comparison:
if I were editing, in 1916, an issue of a journal on applied geometry,
I would definitely have approached Einstein because he has some
previously unthought-of and successful applications of Riemann geometry (to
space-time), although I know for sure that he did not prove any
theorems. (I am not saying, of course, that the papers we accepted for
the student issue are of the Nobel prize caliber, this was just an
example to illustrate the point.)
We strongly believe that it is advantageous to the general readers of
RC to know about these applications, because:
* first, the existence of these applications emphasizes the importance
of interval methods, and thus, boosts our field;
* second, the knowledge of new areas of applications of interval
methods may help researchers who develop these methods to design new
(or modified) methods which are specifically tailored towards these
new application areas; these new methods may, in turn, lead to even
more successful applications;
* third, if the application is general enough, then readers may be
able to use the intellectual breakthrough
of applying this method in one new area to
develop new applications in related fields.
In some cases, it is sufficient to have a short abstract published, and
we do that in the special applications section which we used to run
regularly, but sometimes, the understandable explanation cannot be
done in just one paragraph (especially if it is a novel idea, not just
a modification of the existing application idea).
Usually, the readers of RC are not very aware of these applications
because they are published in specialized journals (e.g., applications
to chemistry in chemical journals, etc.). The papers published in
these special journals are usually written for the corresponding
professional audience, with lots of professional jargon of the
corresponding area, and often without a clear explanation of the
problems which are well-known to the researchers from this area, but
not to us.
As a result of our active solicitation, we received, among others,
several application papers which contained no new mathematical
results, but which described a new successful application area. These
papers were sent to the referees and, if I may, I want to thank the
referees who faced, for these papers, an unusually hard job. These
papers were written, in some cases, by authors with no experience of
writing in mathematical journals, with lots of unexplained non-mathematical
terminology, and sometimes, with the erroneous use of mathematical
terminology and/or notations. We are very thankful to the referees who,
spent quite some time patiently trying to understand and evaluate.
Some of these papers (about a half or so) were eventually
rejected, usually for one of the following reasons:
* the paper may only contain a routine applications of interval
computations; any interval researcher would immediately
suggest such application;
* some papers describe the ideas of the future work, and not the
successful applications; these were usually weeded out by the
referees;
* some papers are too technical and too special, and the explanation
of the specific problem requires so much knowledge about the specific
field that it is hard to imaging a normal reader of RC understanding
it.
(Of course, some papers contained mistakes too.) Some papers are still
under consideration. A few papers, usually, after (unusually) many
iteration between referees and authors, were eventually accepted, many
of them - as short communications.
In particular, the original version of Davis' paper was 10 pages long,
and contained a lot of technical details. After the thorough analysis
by the referees, these details were deleted (I hope Davis publishes
them elsewhere), and the paper was condensed to its present less than
3 pp. This condensation was made possible by the fact that:
* the algorithm which Davis uses was actually published in RC, and
* the intelligent control to which he applies this method, was also
described in one of the papers published in RC.
This allowed the author to replace his original description by a
reference to these papers. After this condensation, the paper became
so short so as to be a Short Communication.
Now that I am seriously thinking about how to classify this paper,
it probably could have been better to
make it a Letter to the Editor, because it fits well into the description
of Letters to the Editor given on the last page of RC: "Responses,
amendments, and additions to published materials can be submitted as
letters to the Editor." The final version of this paper really is an
addition to published materials.
2) HOW TO REVIEW THIS PAPER FOR ZBLATT?
Dr. Markov's email starts with the necessity to review the two papers
for ZBlatt. I quote:
> I must say that for first time in my practice as reviewer of Zlb. (I am
> reviewer for more than 20 years) I have difficulties with writing a
> review. A
> review should briefly report on the mathematical results in the paper
> or on a
> software tool reported. What should be done if there are no such
> results at all?
First of all, I want to emphasize that both ZBlatt and Math. Reviews
are doing a great job of trying to cover all mathematics, and the main
reason why they are so successful is because there are volunteers like
Dr. Markov who thanklessly spend lots of time to review numerous
papers.
I am also a reviewer of ZBlatt (not as long as Dr. Markov, so
the previous praise was more oriented towards him :-), but
my experience is somewhat different, maybe, because my interest areas
have always included such AMS/MOS classification sections
as 81 (quantum mechanics), 83 (relativity and astrophysics), etc.
I get quite a few application papers which are classified to these
areas. Some of them contain new mathematical results (i.e., new
theorems), but often, there is no new mathematical theorem proved, but
what is new is a new application of the existing mathematical
techniques. This is often true in quantum logics, where a paper may
simply describe arguments why an existing ordered algebraic model is
a good description of a quantum system, or that a certain method
well-known in operator theory can actually be successfully used in
quantum applications, etc. I have reviewed several such papers, and
most of my reviews were accepted and published
in ZBlatt (although in some case, based
on my review, ZBlatt decided that this particular paper should not be
featured in a mathematical review journal).
Based on this experience of mine, I think that neither ZBlatt nor MR
necessarily require that each paper contain a "mathematical results"
in the sense of containing "mathematical theorems"; they also accept
papers in which new non-trivial applications are proposed.
(My experience with ZBlatt may be unusual because I also sometimes
serve as their "troubleshooter": once they sent me a paper outside
my normal area of expertise because they could not find an appropriate
reviewer for it; since I reviewed it, they sometimes send me similar
papers once in a while; I guess that I am also sometimes on a
similar position as a referee with RC :-)
After explaining why I believe this paper is appropriate for ZBlatt,
let me be very constructive and suggest the following draft of the
review for ZBlatt (I composed this draft mainly based on the phrases
taken from the text of Davis's paper):
An expert system methodology transforms the knowledge, which experts
formulate by words from natural language, into precise computable
algorithms. An (ideal) expert system produces, for each possible
situation $s$ and for each possible decision $c$, a number
$\mu(c)\in [0,1]$ (called its degree of belief) which describes,
crudely speaking, to what extent we can conclude that this
decision works well for a given situation. If we use this expert
knowledge for an automatic decision-making, then we need to choose a
single value $\bar c$. If $c$ is characterized by a single number, and if
the function $\mu(c)$ is first increasing, and then decreasing,
then a so-called centroid is usually used: $\bar c=(\int
c\mu(c)\,dc)/(\int \mu(c)\,dc)$. However, when a function $\mu(c)$
has several local maxima, centroid may get between these maxima, and
thus, the resulting solution may not ``work well'' in the sense that
the corresponding degree $\mu(\bar c)$ may be
small. For these situations, it was suggested to select an area
(interval) between two consequent local minima, and only integrate
over this area in the integrals defining $\bar c$.
\par
In real-life applications, the function $\mu(c)$ is often
represented by its values $\mu(c_1),\ldots,\mu(c_n)$ in finitely
many points $c_1 What will a reader say after several hours of reading
> to establish that
> there is nothing in the paper?
Since there is a text, and I can explain exactly what in this text is
new (namely, the idea to use an interval algorithm for finding local
minima to solve an intelligent control problem).
I have two possible interpretations of this statement about
"nothing":
* First, although the idea is new and seemed
non-trivial to the referees, it looks absolutely trivial (= nothing)
to Dr. Markov.
* The paper is not well written, requires quite some time to
understand ("several hours" is definitely should not be needed to
read three pages), and creates, at first, a wrong and thus
irritating impression that it contains more material than the
simple idea that is actually its contents.
In the first case, I would still stick with our decision to publish
this paper, because if this idea appeared to be non-trivial for 2 out
of 3 people who judged it, I think it is OK.
In the second case, it may have been my fault (although justifiable):
since, as I mentioned, the initial version of this paper was very
technical, I sent this paper to referees who were knowledgeable in
this particular area (intelligent control), because other potential
referees would simply not have understood the situation. In the
beginning, this was the only possibility, but after the paper was
transformed into a format (hopefully) more readable for a general
audience I could have done an extra step of sending it to a third
referee with no preliminary knowledge of intelligent control, to
doublecheck on understandability. If this is the case, I apologize for
not doing it.
If I am completely wrong, and Dr. Markov has in mind some
third interpretation of the terms "nothing", I would appreciate the
explanations.
3) SHALL WE CONTINUE TO SEND MATERIAL FROM THE
"SHORT COMMUNICATIONS" SECTIONS TO THE REFEREES?
MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING
I definitely share with Dr. Markov his desire to make the journal
better. However, I am somewhat puzzled by his proposal to achieve this
goal by eliminating refereeing for short communications:
> I already wrote some time ago to
> the Editor in Chief
> that all materials in "Letters to the Editor" should be clearly
> distinguished as
> nonscientific papers so that they do not undergo scientific reviewing.
> Probably
> the same should hold for papers appearing in similar sections like "Short
> Communications". At present these papers have the same format as
> a scientific
> paper. They undergo reviewing and they are probably used for scientific
> nominations. Is this correct?
Maybe I misunderstood something? I can interpret this suggestion in
two different ways:
* Not to referee at all and publish all submitted Short Communications.
I do not believe that this is what Dr. Markov means because
I witnessed with my own eyes how refereeing rejected some
communications and improved others. I do not see how publishing the
original hard-to-read texts would have made the journal any better.
* Instead of a regular procedure of sending to the referees, let the
Editor-in-Chief handle these small pieces. If this is the
suggestion, I agree 100%, if Slava Nesterov is willing to do it, but I
am afraid that since he has many other duties already, he will
simply ask others to referee it, so there will be no big difference
except in who handles refereeing.
Again, maybe I misunderstood the suggesttion, in this case I would
appreciate a clarification.
4) SHOULD WE EXPLICITLY INDICATE THAT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE NOT
REFEREED?
I think it may be a very good idea. It makes sense to check
how this is done in other journals, in particular, in other
Kluwer journals. On the other hand, if this explicit indication
is not done in any of the
journals, it may mean that by default, Letter to the Editor means
something that is normally not sent to a referee, only selected by an
editor.
I am not that comfortable with the idea of calling Letters to the
Editor "nonscientific papers". I think this wording is somewhat
negative; it sounds to me that this term is more appropriate to describe
a criticism of UFOs or extra sense perception. Since I am not a native
speaker of English, I may be wrong.
5) WHAT WAS THE REFEREEING PROCESS FOR THE PAPERS SUBMITTED TO THE
STUDENT ISSUE (IN PARTICULAR, ARE OUR STANDARDS LOWER IN STUDENT ISSUES)?
We tried our best to emulate the normal refereeing process that is
used in RC, when (at least) two referees are assigned to each paper.
We realized that the very title of the student issue may somehow
indicate lower quality and lower requirements, so we took an
extra effort to specifically emphasize, in our advertisement for this
issue, and in our instructions to the referees, where we specifically
wrote:
The papers for the student issue must be up to the same standards as
all other papers submitted to the journal. The reason for placing
student papers (and papers co-authored by students)
into a separate issue is that students normally need a
speedy publication.
If out of two referees,
both referees recommended rejection, the paper was rejected; if
both recommended acceptance, the paper was accepted, with revisions if
necessary. There was no fixed policy for the
papers rejected by one referee; such papers were decided on a
case-by-case basis. First, the editor handling the paper tried to
read, very attentively, both the paper and the reports.
* In some cases, the editor got a strong feeling that faults noticed by
the rejecting referee are really fatal. In this case, the paper was
rejected.
* In some cases, the editor got an equally strong feeling that the
advantages noticed by the accepting referees outweigh the fault
noticed by the rejecting one, or, which was even more often, because
the paper was initially badly written, the rejecting referee simply
missed the contents which the accepting referee found. In this case,
we interpreted the rejecting referee report as a request for a major
revision.
* In some cases, the editor could not get a clear picture, or the
topic was too far away from the editor's area of expertise. In this
case, the paper was sent to the third editor whose opinion made a
final decision.
We realize that this was not a uniform decision, and maybe we should
have selected a one which is uniform, and maybe we should have
consulted with the editorial board about the general policies. What we
did instead was we basically emulated the
experiences of ourselves and our colleagues
as authors of papers submitted to and refereed in different journals
(I am not 100% sure, but, based on the experience of my own accepted
and rejected papers, I intend to think that RC in general has all
three possibilities open too).
I tried my best to trace the story of the paper
> Hu, Ch. et al.: An interval polynomial interpolation problem and
> its Lagrange
> solution, 27--38;
It was received in 1995, intended for the 1996 special student issue,
and it was sent to two referees.
> As far as I remember I was a referee of a previous version of the
> first paper
This is correct.
> and I did not recommend publishing.
Yes, in your referee report, you made several very useful
suggestions. Both referees did not recommend the publication of the
paper in its current form:
* your report said that the paper "have not yet
reached the stage to be published", and that because of the amount
of required improvements, "this paper cannot be prepared for this
issue"; as one of the main reasons for your opinion, you mentioned
that you did not find a new mathematical result in this paper (a new
proposition or a new algorithm);
* the second referee repeated some of your specific criticisms
(results were not new, problem was not clearly formulated, etc.),
added a few criticisms of his/her own, but he did find a new algorithm
in this paper, and concluded "the paper is
interesting, but it cannot be published in the present form; it must
be seriously revised".
As indicated above, I looked at both reports and decided to give the
authors one more chance, especially since I (probably misunderstanding
you) did not view your viewpoint as exactly rejection. You were
absolutely right in the sense that there was no time for the authors
to make all improvements and return the revised version at the time
for the 1996 student issue, so the paper was automatically transferred
to the next student issue (which happened to be the future 98,1).
On comparing the dates of acceptance published in the paper with the
dates dating the files that I have, I realized that the date of
acceptance on this paper was incorrect: it should be 1997, not
1996. Since Slava usually keeps a good record of these dates, I think
that this is my fault: when I sent this date to Slava with a
softcopy of the accepted paper, I made a typo in the year.
Now that I see the typo in the dates, I understand why, on seeing
this paper, you grew even more concerned: you sent your referee
report on December 1995, with serious revision recommendations which
would take at least a year to implement, but (according to the
journal) already on February 1996, this paper was accepted without
your knowledge. In this form, it looks like your report was
completely ignored.
In reality, the revision did take a year or so for the authors.
The author tried their best to revise the paper according to the
comments of both referees.
> How did it happen that the paper appeared without my knowledge?
This is a good question and unfortunately, I do not have the exact
answer to it, because I did not keep a log of my email correspondence
in 1997, when this acceptance was nearing.
I have some memory, but I may be wrong. According to what I remember,
and judging by the fact that several papers in the 98,1 issue were
accepted at approximately the same time, in February 1997, this was
the supposed deadline for the 1997 issue, but which time we were
planning to have the bulk of the papers ready so as not to miss the
next issue (at that time, we were still planning to have it in
1997). Since several of these papers were already leftovers from the
1996 issue, I was concerned that they may get delayed even further,
which kind of defeats the above stated purpose of student issue as a
means of fast publications.
So, I tried to speed up processing all the papers as much as
possible, by pressing both on the authors and on the referees.
So, when the revised version of this paper
appeared very close to the deadline,
I asked the second referee (who I knew was readily available at that
time) to check whether all the major drawbacks indicated by both
referees were corrected in the revised version. I do not remember why
I could not contact you at a short notice (it may be that something was
wrong with our email connection). The second referee, in
general, agreed that the revision has been successfully made,
but made lots of small corrections and suggestions
that the authors implemented in a urgent way.
To doublecheck, I myself browsed through the revised paper and the
recommended corrections, and I got the impression (probably wrong)
that the main drawbacks indicated by you (first referee) were indeed
eliminated: namely, the new version contained an explicit new
algorithm; it contained an explicit mention of the case when the
degree of the polynomial was smaller than the number of knots, etc. (If
there is something missing, this means that I did not read it
attentively enough.) My reading confirmed the opinion of the second
editor that the paper was corrected, and the authors clearly used a
lot of advise from your report to improve it (and thanked you in their
Acknowledgment part).
I felt that this paper did contain a new result, and I had a highly
favorable opinion of the second referee, so I decided to recommend it for
publication.
If my recollection is indeed correct, then I am definitely guilty of
an unorthodox way of handling this situation. I probably
should not have done that, and it may have probably been better to
postpone the publication of this paper.
I, however, strongly disagree with your opinion that this paper
contains "nothing". It does contain a new algorithm (at least the
second referee considered it new, and the authors did not find it in
the papers that you recommended in your original referee report), and
the experimental results of applying this algorithm.
> I really wonder if there has been another referee at all?
There was a one. I have a copy of his/her referee report.
> Let me just mention a striking ignorance: half of the references
> are not mentioned
> in the text.
I would not use this strong words "striking ignorance", but I agree
with you that it is not good. My guess is that when the paper was
revised, the authors did not realize that after their deletions,
references to the deleted papers were unintentionally deleted.
The referee does not check this (I can understand that: I for one
never check this unless this really strikes me as odd; this is
probably easily done in LaTeX), and I, as an editor, did not check
this either.
It may be a good idea for our journal to follow the example
of SIAM journals and to start checking whether all the papers
in the bibliography are actually referenced in the text.
6) AN IMPORTANT ISSUE: UNIFORMITY
A real important issue raised by Dr. Markov's letter is uniformity:
we should avoid rejection of papers of
higher intrinsic merit than ones that are published, and visa versa.
Again, let me thank Dr. Markov for his concerns and let us hope that
his concern will helps us all improve the journal.
Yours
Vladik
From owner-reliable_computing Thu Jun 25 07:55:19 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA19423
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:54:17 -0500
Received: from ns2.ge.com by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA19417
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:54:13 -0500
Received: from thomas.ge.com (thomas.ge.com [3.47.28.21])
by ns2.ge.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA16737
for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:53:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ral-util01.gecmc.ge.com (ral-util01.gecmc.ge.com [3.73.121.205])
by thomas.ge.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA07305
for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nc2-risk01.gecmc.ge.com by ral-util01.gecmc.ge.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id LAA08027; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:55:21 -0400
Received: by nc2-risk01.gecmc.ge.com (SMI-8.6) id LAA05940; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:55:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:55:19 -0400
Message-Id: <199806251555.LAA05940@nc2-risk01.gecmc.ge.com>
From: Raj Patil <>
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: IA and Monte Carlo
Reply-To: Raj Patil
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Hi:
I am looking for practical applications (especially in finance) where
IA or fuzzy arithmetic has been compared to Monte Carlo simulations.
Thanks,
Raj Patil
GE Capital
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 26 04:30:40 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA19913
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:40:19 -0500
Received: from into.nit.spb.su by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA19907
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:39:45 -0500
Received: from slava.UUCP (uucp@localhost)
by into.nit.spb.su (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id AAA03452
for reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:41:18 +0400 (MSD)
(envelope-from slava!slava.nit.spb.su!nest)
Received: by slava.nit.spb.su (dMail for DOS v1.23, 15Jun94);
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:30:40 +0400
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Message-Id:
Organization: Slava Nesterov
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:30:40 +0400 (MSD)
Reply-To: nest [at] into [dot] nit.spb.su
From: "Slava Nesterov"
X-Mailer: dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v1.23]
Subject: Re: Open letter
Lines: 155
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Colleagues,
I have read "Open letter..." by Prof. Markov and the respond by
Prof.Kreinovich and I would like to express my opinion concerning
some questions arisen in these messages.
I see two major things I have to say about. The first is
the form of "Open letter" and the second is its contents.
I am not sure that Prof. Markov chose the best way to discuss
the important questions concerning the journal Reliable Computing
and its editorial policy. I think it would be better to discuss them
among editorial board (at least for the beginning). Also I cannot
accede with style of evaluation of two papers and evaluation of
invited editor's activity.
In spite of the "emotional" style of the letter which I cannot agree with,
Prof. Markov arose very important questions and I'd like to thank him
for it. I hope this exchange of opinions will help us
to increase the level of the journal.
Let me now comment some parts of "Open letter" and Prof. Kreinovich's
respond.
Prof.Markov wrote:
--As far as I remember I was a referee and
--I did not recommend publishing. How did it happen that the paper appeared
--without my knowledge? I really wonder if there has been another
--referee at all
I think it is the main editors' fault (and probably the only one).
In the case
when one report is positive, the other is negative and I have no possibility
to continue referee process I never publish a paper.
A couple times the following situation occurred: one referee
wrote me something like this "I don't like the paper and I don't
recommend it for publishing but if you want you can choose other
referee because I ...." In this case I definitely chose other referee
or attentively considered the paper myself. But if referee said "no" decidedly
I didn't publish the paper.
--As for the second "paper", I already wrote some time ago to the
--Editor in Chief that all materials in "Letters to the Editor"
--should be clearly distinguished as
--nonscientific papers so that they do not undergo scientific reviewing.
It is true. I think it should be mentioned in the "Information
for authors" section or something like this. It is my mistake that
I didn't do it before. I'll include such words beginning from 1999 when
journal's appearance will be slightly changed.
In practice I don't conduct the full referee process for such
materials. I usually read them attentively myself and very often
ask somebody else (one person) to read too.
--Probably
--the same should hold for papers appearing in similar sections like "Short
--Communications".
Absolutely disagree. Short communications are the same thing as usual
papers but the short ones. Probably some authors (I remember
at least one such a case) don't like to place their paper to this section
but I think they are not right. The referee process is absolutely the
same as for "big" papers.
--At present these papers have the same format as a scientific
--paper. They undergo reviewing and they are probably used for scientific
--nominations. Is this correct?
Correct
==============================================================
Prof.Kreinovich wrote:
--1) SHOULD WE PUBLISH APPLICATION PAPERS WHICH CONTAIN NO NEW
--MATHEMATICAL RESULTS?
Generally I agree with Vladik's point of view. There are other
questions "How
many application papers should we publish" and "Should we distinguish
such papers and place them to special sections like "application,
tutorial etc.". But these questions have to be discussed separately.
We should devoted some part of each volume to applications.
--3) SHALL WE CONTINUE TO SEND MATERIAL FROM THE
--"SHORT COMMUNICATIONS" SECTIONS TO THE REFEREES?
--MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING
I certainly think that the referee process should be the
same for "big" papers and materials from "Short Communication" section.
--4) SHOULD WE EXPLICITLY INDICATE THAT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE NOT
--REFEREED?
--I think it may be a very good idea.
I think we should. Usually we publish as such letters materials like
information about conferences, books etc. Of course these are not
scientific papers and should not be refereed.
--5) WHAT WAS THE REFEREEING PROCESS FOR THE PAPERS SUBMITTED TO THE
--STUDENT ISSUE (IN PARTICULAR, ARE OUR STANDARDS LOWER IN STUDENT ISSUES)?
....
-- The papers for the student issue must be up to the same standards as
-- all other papers submitted to the journal. The reason for placing
-- student papers (and papers co-authored by students)
-- into a separate issue is that students normally need a
-- speedy publication.
Agree
--If out of two referees,
--both referees recommended rejection, the paper was rejected; if
--both recommended acceptance, the paper was accepted, with revisions if
--necessary. There was no fixed policy for the
--papers rejected by one referee; such papers were decided on a
--case-by-case basis.
I think it would be better to make arrangement with referee or at least
find third referee, obtain positive report and inform referee in advance
showing him/her all editor's arguments to publish the paper.
--* In some cases, the editor could not get a clear picture, or the
-- topic was too far away from the editor's area of expertise. In this
-- case, the paper was sent to the third editor whose opinion made a
-- final decision.
Third referee is meant. I think in this case discussion between
referees and editor would be useful. I am sure that in all
cases when it is possible we must find the consensus.
--We realize that this was not a uniform decision, and maybe we should
--have selected a one which is uniform, and maybe we should have
--consulted with the editorial board about the general policies.
To consult with EB is a good idea. Maybe to initiate a discussion
among EB members devoted to criteria of acceptance papers?
And not only among EB members.
==============================================
As the discussion already takes place in such a wide audience as our
mailing list, I'd like to ask people not from the editorial board
to express their opinions and vision of the situation.
There is Russian proverb: "No prophet in the fatherland". So the
opinion from outside may be more exact.
Thank you,
Slava Nesterov
From owner-reliable_computing Thu Jun 25 12:03:01 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA20412
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:02:58 -0500
Received: from boris.mscs.mu.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA20406
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:02:56 -0500
Received: by boris.mscs.mu.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #9)
id m0ypK6g-001HckC; Thu, 25 Jun 98 17:03 CDT
Message-Id:
From: georgec [at] marque [dot] mscs.mu.edu (Dr. George F. Corliss MU MSCS)
Subject: Re: Open letter (fwd)
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:03:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: georgec [at] marque [dot] mscs.mu.edu (George Corliss)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1369
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
I, too appreciate the open discussion, and thank Professor Markov for
raising the issue. Here are a few of my thoughts.
1. Applications are science, too, even if they are not original
mathematics. If we cure cancer, that is publishable. Who cares
whether we label it math, biology, chemistry, medicine, or computer
science?
2. Surprising referees. I, too, have been surprised from time to
time by seeing a paper I had recommend rejecting appear. I fully
understand the process. When I have served as editor, I have tried to
notify each referee of the disposition of the papers they had read,
along with a sentence or two on why. It is a bit more work, and I was
not always able to do so. However, I recommend that practice to
editors. At least that is an extra opportunity to thank the referees
for their work and to alert them to the final disposition. I find the
courtesy leaves referees more inclined to say, "Yes" to my next
request for refereeing, too.
3. I favor slightly flexible standards for student papers, but I
suspect they rarely need them. It is good to encourage promising
young mathematicians.
George F. Corliss
Dept. Math, Stat, Comp Sci
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881 USA
georgec [at] mscs [dot] mu.edu; CorlissG [at] Marquette [dot] edu
http://www.mscs.mu.edu/~georgec/
Office: 414-288-6599; Dept: 288-7375; Fax: 288-5472
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 26 11:38:50 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA21084
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:06:41 -0500
Received: from iph.bio.acad.bg by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA21078
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 04:06:13 -0500
Received: from biomath.bio.acad.bg (biomath.bio.acad.bg [194.141.4.32]) by iph.bio.acad.bg (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA00384; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:41:24 +0300
Message-Id: <199806260641.JAA00384 [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Svetoslav Markov"
Organization: Institute of Biophysics - BAS
To: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:38:50 +0200
Subject: Re: an open letter to the guest editors of RC 4,1
Reply-To: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
Cc: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
X-Confirm-Reading-To: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
X-Pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Vladik,
> Let me try to answer his concerns and related questions one by one.
thank you for the long explanations. Still some concerns remain.
>
> 1) SHOULD WE PUBLISH APPLICATION PAPERS WHICH CONTAIN NO NEW
> MATHEMATICAL RESULTS?
> One of the two papers that Professor Markov believes to be inappropriate
> in Reliable Computing is a paper by C. Davis "A new application of
> local minima of interval functions: interval-valued fuzzy control",
> a 3-page paper published in the Short Communications section of the
> student issue 98,1. For those who did not read this paper, I will
> briefly explain its contents: it describes, in brief, an application of
> a known interval-mathematics related algorithm (namely, an algorithm
> for finding local minima of an interval function) to a new area, in
> which this algorithm has not been applied before, namely, to the area
> of intelligent control. This paper does not contain any new
> mathematical results; however, since the application area is new, and
> it required some intellectual effort to find this new interesting (and
> successful) application, the
> referees believed that this paper (after appropriate revisions)
> would be of interest to the readership of the journal.
>
....
> The importance of applications is emphasized in
> the journal's Aims and Scopes statement
....
> we also actively solicited papers from
> those researchers who did not prove any new mathematical results, but
> who have the experience of successfully using existing interval
> methods to solve new problems in unexpected application areas.
>
You say nice words about applications, and I completely agree. I even agree with
the remark of Prof. Corliss that we may/should accept applications not only in
other mathematical branches but also in biology, physics, chemistry.
It is important to make clear what an application of the science (theory, method)
X into the science Y means. This may be useful for the people of the mailing
list, and especially for the authors in RC. And this is the reason why I made
this discussion open -- the authors of RC should know about the difficulties met
by the Editorial board of RC when estimating their papers. (I appologize to the
Editor in Chief; I would not have done so if a discussion between the EB
members was available.)
An application of X to Y means that a new scientific result has been obtained
in the field Y using methods characteristic for the field X. (That is the
methods from X need not be new.)
We have basically two cases of applications. The first case is when X and Y are
from two different basic fields --- by basic field I mean mathematics (M),
biology (B), physics (P) and chemistry (C). The interesting situation (for us)
is X in M, Y in B, P or C. In this case Y should be related to some real-word
experiment and the method X should help in the etablishing a law (relation)
between the objects involved in this experiment. The experiment may be not
made by the author, but by other authors (but it is better if repeated by the
authors, since their methods from X may require some modifications in the
experimental measurements). An example: the work of Lang about gravitation
reported at SCAN97. This are the best cases, I agree with you, you mention such
applications, and the steps in the modelling process. Of course in this case X
may not involve new mathematical results but the new result should be in B,P or
C. Typical interdisciplinary fields are biochemistry, biophyscs,
biomathematics, etc, all combinations of the for letters M,B,P,C, thereby the
order can be taken into account (it says where the new result is).
The second type (and the most often) is when X and Y are from same basic field,
in our case M (otherwise the work will not go to RC). For instance, as in the
paper of C. Davis, X is from the field of interval analysis, and Y is from the
field of fuzzy control. Both areas are mathematical. Here the main resuls are
in Y (fyzzy control) using tools from X.
Having worked a long time in interdiscuiplinary fields I understand very well
the tricks made by some authors: they do not make clear the direction of
the application, that is, where the main result is and where the known tools
are. They try to be great by saying that their main results are in both fields.
Since the referees are not so great (they are normally specialist in one of the
two fields), its a good place for confusion.: the specialst in X should think
that the new result is in Y, and the specialist in Y should think that the new
result is in X. This is well-known trick.
It is fairly obvious that no new result in fuzzy control is found in the paper
of C. Davis. But here I am concerned with your statement that just the idea of
how to do an application is enough to be published. Here I do not agree with
you. An idea, without actually performing the application and finding the new
result, may not work at all. This is what I call NOTHING. Or if everybody
agrees, then it is trivial (its something obvious).
Exactly here I am interested in the oppinion of other EB members. I must say
that if more than 50% of them take your side, I should withdraw from the EB.
Because I believe that such an understanding will soon make RC a very bad
journal.
> To make this position more convincing, let me give you a comparison:
> if I were editing, in 1916, an issue of a journal on applied geometry,
> I would definitely have approached Einstein because he has some
> previously unthought-of and successful applications of Riemann geometry (to
> space-time), although I know for sure that he did not prove any
> theorems. (I am not saying, of course, that the papers we accepted for
> the student issue are of the Nobel prize caliber, this was just an
> example to illustrate the point.)
This is a bad example, and I shall write a separate letter about it
>
> 2) HOW TO REVIEW THIS PAPER FOR ZBLATT?
> ...
> Based on this experience of mine, I think that neither ZBlatt nor MR
> necessarily require that each paper contain a "mathematical results"
> in the sense of containing "mathematical theorems"; they also accept
> papers in which new non-trivial applications are proposed.
>
I agree, unless you agree with my understanding of "application"
> An expert system methodology transforms the knowledge, which experts
> formulate by words from natural language, into precise computable
> algorithms. An (ideal) expert system produces, for each possible
> situation $s$ and for each possible decision $c$, a number
> $\mu(c)\in [0,1]$ (called its degree of belief) which describes,
> crudely speaking, to what extent we can conclude that this
> decision works well for a given situation. If we use this expert
> knowledge for an automatic decision-making, then we need to choose a
> single value $\bar c$. If $c$ is characterized by a single number, and if
> the function $\mu(c)$ is first increasing, and then decreasing,
> then a so-called centroid is usually used: $\bar c=(\int
> c\mu(c)\,dc)/(\int \mu(c)\,dc)$. However, when a function $\mu(c)$
> has several local maxima, centroid may get between these maxima, and
> thus, the resulting solution may not ``work well'' in the sense that
> the corresponding degree $\mu(\bar c)$ may be
> small. For these situations, it was suggested to select an area
> (interval) between two consequent local minima, and only integrate
> over this area in the integrals defining $\bar c$.
> \par
> In real-life applications, the function $\mu(c)$ is often
> represented by its values $\mu(c_1),\ldots,\mu(c_n)$ in finitely
> many points $c_1 find all local minima. However, often, for every $i$, we only
> have an {\it interval} $[\mu^-(c_i),\mu^+(c_i)]$ of possible
> values of $\mu(c_i)$. In this case, we face a problem of finding
> possible intervals between local minima. To solve this problem, the
> author proposes to use an algorithm from ZBlatt ...
This text is unappropriate for review for Zbl. They need very short reviews.
The best is when you first say in several words the field and then in several
words the new result.
>
> I am not quite sure what exactly Dr. Markov means when he says that
> there is nothing in this paper:
>
> > What will a reader say after several hours of reading
> > to establish that
> > there is nothing in the paper?
>
> Since there is a text, and I can explain exactly what in this text is
> new (namely, the idea to use an interval algorithm for finding local
> minima to solve an intelligent control problem).
> I have two possible interpretations of this statement about
> "nothing":
Neither of your two interpretations. As I said, an idea, however great, is just
a possible tool.. It should be implemented to get a new scientific result in
such a way that the reader is convinced in this (that is, in case of
mathematics, a proof is needed). Just the idea is NOTHING.
> 3) SHALL WE CONTINUE TO SEND MATERIAL FROM THE
> "SHORT COMMUNICATIONS" SECTIONS TO THE REFEREES?
> MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING
>
I said. if the EB accepts such communications (containing just an idea), and if
such papers are put in a section "Short communications" then such "papers"
shoud not be reviewd. BUT, there are real short communications (of courese a
great theorem can be put in one page paper), I did not men this case at all.
> 4) SHOULD WE EXPLICITLY INDICATE THAT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE NOT
> REFEREED?
...
> I am not that comfortable with the idea of calling Letters to the
> Editor "nonscientific papers". I think this wording is somewhat
> negative; it sounds to me that this term is more appropriate to describe
> a criticism of UFOs or extra sense perception. Since I am not a native
> speaker of English, I may be wrong.
Ltters are metascience. I intend to submit this letter for publication, do you
think thare is some new scientific result in it?
>
> 5) WHAT WAS THE REFEREEING PROCESS FOR THE PAPERS SUBMITTED TO THE
> STUDENT ISSUE (IN PARTICULAR, ARE OUR STANDARDS LOWER IN STUDENT ISSUES)?
>
I am glad to here that you, Slava Nesterov, and Gearge Corliss think that a
negative report should be respected. The referee should at least know about the
final resolution of the Editor and his motivations.
To make this letter shorter, I only want to object your last words related to
uniformity. I do not agree that the quality standard of RC should be
considered established by the quality of the already published papers. Some of
the alreasdy published papers are of very law quality. The EB should make an
effort that such papers do not appear in the future.
Svetoslav
-- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- +
Dr. Svetoslav Markov
Section "Biomathematics", Inst. of phone: +3592-713-3704, +3592-707460,
Mathematics and Computer Sci., fax: +3592-971-3649,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, e-mail: smarkov [at] iph [dot] bio.acad.bg
"Acad. G. Bonchev" st., block 8, smarkov [at] bgearn [dot] acad.bg
BG-1113 Sofia, BULGARIA
home address: 11 Mizia, 1124 Sofia, tel. +3592-444651
-- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- + -- +
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 26 09:15:15 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA21964
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:15:27 -0500
Received: from cs.utep.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA21958
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:15:20 -0500
Received: from earth.cs.utep.edu by cs.utep.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA02180; Fri, 26 Jun 98 15:15:16 MDT
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 15:15:15 MDT
From: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
Message-Id: <9806262115.AA02180 [at] cs [dot] utep.edu>
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: Re: Open letter
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
Dear Friends,
Once again, I want to thank Dr. Markov for starting this important
discussion.
I was glad to learn, from his reply to me, that although we disagree
in our evaluation of certain papers, we seem to be in
complete agreement about the general editorial policy of the journal:
1) We both agree, and other members of the editorial board who
responded before also agree,
that in addition to papers which contain mathematical results,
the journal should publish good papers which contain important
applications to real-life problems.
(I thank Dr. Markov for a good example of Lang's work on gravitation;
I am especially happy to see this example, because this was one of the
papers that we actively solicited for the previous student issue).
The whole point of my previous email was to argue this point, and I
am relieved to know that in spite of the difference in terminology
which sounded like we drastically differ on this issue, we
both agree on this policy issue.
2) We both agree that trivial papers, with results which are obvious
to specialists in a field, should not be published in the journal.
I specifically emphasized, in my previous email, that this was one
of the main reasons for rejecting several application papers.
Again, we disagree with Dr. Markov on specific papers, which is
normal: what is trivial to one person may not be so trivial to others,
but we agree on the principle.
3) We both agree that we need to be extra careful when refereeing
interdisciplinary papers. Usually, for such a paper, if we cannot find a
referee who understands both areas, we try to send to several referees
who are specialists in different areas.
4) We both agree that negative referee reports should be seriously
taken into consideration.
Dr. Markov and Dr. Nesterov convinced me also
that it is in the best interest of the journal and of the community
that not only the contents of the negative referee reports should be
taken into consideration, but the referees themselves should decide
whether their concerns were taken into consideration in the revised
version.
In my previous experience as an editor, although I tried to consult
the referees, I did not make it a 100% rule. Now I realize that it was
a mistake. Once again, I want to sincerely apologize not only to Dr.
Markov, but to all other referees who may feel that their negative
opinions were neglected, and assure them that their opinions
and suggestions were never neglected.
I am convinced now that consulting the referees themselves
is extremely important. We may want to make
it a general policy of the journal.
In short, I think that Dr. Markov and I do not have any disagreement
on the editorial policy.
Vladik
P.S. I am so happy that we agree on major points
of editorial policy that I may have overlooked some minor issues where
we do disagree. I agree with Dr. Markov that it is in the best
interest of the journal and of the interval community in general to
have high quality papers in the journal.
I therefore welcome all suggestions on how we can achieve this goal,
and I would be glad to continue the on-line discussion on general
policy issues.
However, may I suggest that we move the discussion of *specific* papers
off-line. I realize that Dr. Markov is seriously concerned about
the quality of the journal, and I think I am speaking for all the
editors when I say that we all I (otherwise, we would not be on the
editorial board).
* If a paper contains a mistake (mathematical or
applied), I would be the first to push the journal to publish a
correction as soon as possible.
* However, whether something is trivial
or not is often a matter of opinion, not a fact.
There are lots of anecdotal evidence in mathematics when a well-known
paper was initially rejected as trivial and obvious. For example, I
remember a very highly-publicized case in Russia, when a
Doctor of Science dissertation on category theory was rejected
as trivial, and then was published as an important breakthrough when
the author emigrated to the US.
It is not a common mathematical practice for editors of a journal
to discuss the quality of individual published papers in public,
and I think one of the reasons why this is not done
is that such discussions may unintentionally hurt the young authors'
feeling and reputation, and discourage others from submitting papers
to our journal.
I may be slightly exaggerating the potential harm,
but I would rather be mistaken on the side of caution,
and therefore, I urge all the participants of this discussion to
avoid using the entire mailing list for discussing individual papers.
For such discussions, we can set up an editorial board mailing list.
Dr. Kearfott, the maintainer of this (large) mailing list,
and Dr. Nesterov (the journal's editor-in-chief)
can hopefully help in setting an editorial mailing list.
From owner-reliable_computing Fri Jun 26 10:15:29 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA22305
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:15:35 -0500
Received: from cs.utep.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA22299
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:15:32 -0500
Received: from earth.cs.utep.edu by cs.utep.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA02450; Fri, 26 Jun 98 16:15:29 MDT
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 98 16:15:29 MDT
From: vladik [at] cs [dot] utep.edu (Vladik Kreinovich)
Message-Id: <9806262215.AA02450 [at] cs [dot] utep.edu>
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
Subject: ZBlatt, MR, CR
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
This email is addressed to all interval researchers who are
reviewers for Math Reviews, ZBlatt, and Computing Reviews.
Once in a while, each of us receives an interval-related paper which
he/she finds difficult to referee. Very often, it happens with
multidisciplinary papers, especially papers on applications of
interval computations.
For example, a paper in which interval computations are applied to
quantum mechanics may require an understanding of both areas; there
definitely are researchers who have this understanding in both areas,
but ZBlatt and MR may be unaware of them (especially since the American
Mathematical Society classification, on which their reviewers lists
are based, does not reflect interval computations well).
ZBlatt and MR explicitly encourage passing papers (which were
sent for review) to
other researchers or returning them back to ZBlatt or MR office. The
second possibility may not be a good idea, because for the same reason
(described above) why this paper was sent to a wrong reviewer in the
first place, it may be send to another wrong reviewer the second time
too.
I agree with Dr. Markov that it is extremely important for
our field to be well represented to the mathematical community
at large, and reviewing journals are one of our main windows to
mathematics in general.
May I volunteer therefore to serve as a clearing house for these
cases: if you have such a troubling paper, and you do not know who to
forward it to, please inform me about the paper, and I will try either
to review it myself (if it falls within my area of expertise) or send
it to somebody else in interval computations who I know to be a
specialist in this area.
The reason why I may be of help is that after
organizing the workshop in 1995 on applications of interval
computations and after selecting referees for application papers, I
have some understanding of who is doing what applications. However, if
anyone else is willing to serve as such a clearinghouse I will be glad
to help that person as much as I can.
Yours sincerely
Vladik
My mailing address is:
Vladik Kreinovich
Department of Computer Science
University of Texas at El Paso
El Paso, TX 79968, USA
From owner-reliable_computing Tue Jun 30 11:51:49 1998
Received: by interval.usl.edu id AA00218
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for reliable_computing-outgoing); Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:51:25 -0500
Received: from bp.ucs.usl.edu by interval.usl.edu with SMTP id AA00212
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:51:22 -0500
Received: from rbk5287.usl.edu (liberty.usl.edu [130.70.46.171])
by bp.ucs.usl.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7/ucs-server_1.1) with SMTP id QAA23966
for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:51:20 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980630215149.0087aeb8 [at] pop [dot] usl.edu>
X-Sender: rbk5287 [at] pop [dot] usl.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:51:49 -0500
To: reliable_computing [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
From: "R. Baker Kearfott"
Subject: How to reach the Reliable Computing editorial board
Sender: owner-reliable_computing
Precedence: bulk
A mailing list has been set up to reach members of the editorial board
of the journal "Reliable Computing."
If you send a message to
rc_editors [at] interval [dot] usl.edu
it will reach each member of the editorial board, no more, no less.
Best regards,
R. Baker Kearfott
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk [at] usl [dot] edu (318) 482-5346 (fax)
(318) 482-5270 (work) (318) 981-9744 (home)
URL: http://interval.usl.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Southwestern Louisiana
USL Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------