By Anonymous User
Review Details
Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous
Overall Impression: Good
Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes
Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good
Detailed Comments:
The revision of the paper has improved notably its quality and readability. The inclusion of tables summarising the insights of the paper are very helpful to ha a global vision of the neuro-symbolic perspective of the problem. Authors also included aspects like scalability and tractability of the logic-based approaches, which indeed are the main drawbacks for this hybrid methods. Also some errors in tables and formulas have been fixed. Finally, many issues with references and citations have been fixed as well.
I suggest a futher and carefully reading of the paper as some few typos and errors persist:
- capitalise the citation of a figure or table). Also some paragraphs would need some rewriting
- Section 5.4.1. lines 47 and 48: not clear if cited figures must be Figure 12 or 13.
- Page 24. lines 31-36: I do not understand the last sentence, which kind of constraints? embedding tasks?
