Review Comment:
I initially gave this paper a "Major Revision" decision, mainly due to the lack of information about the explainability of the system. The authors have addressed that issue, and added a very well-done Section 6.3 to the paper. The paper in general is better balanced now and readability has improved as well.
I have more issues, however (but increased my rating to "Minor Revision" because I believe that the contrasting of the ML approaches in the updated paper is a good contribution):
- The conclusions in 6.4 are too strong. In particular, I find the explainability of the decision tree, illustrated in Fig 9, better than that of the new system (at least for humans). At the same time, the decision tree is faster, and has higher precision and recall values. Why should I go for the new system in the discussed use case?
- Several parts of the paper raise readers' eyebrows. This should be smoothed out or improved:
--- "but their main weakness is in the lack of a structured and meaningful representation of detected events". I disagree.
--- "ii) their precision is increased if applied on very big data amounts, so making on-line analysis unfeasible." vs. "early research has shown state-of-the-art ML is effective
in the domain of ubiquitous sensor networks [34]". Isn't this a contradiction?
--- "MAFALDA exhibits a very low training time, making the approach suitable for on the fly data stream processing, while evaluation time is higher due to semantic matchmaking". Why? Classification happens more frequently over time than traning.
- Finally, while readability has improved, the article is not there yet in my opinion. There are obvious use-of-language flaws (e.g., "grow" vs. "grow up") that should be checked by an as-native-as-possible speaker.
|