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
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: Average
Detailed Comments:
I thank the authors for carefully addressing the issues pointed out in the reviews. The formalization, examples, and clarifications were satisfactory.
Comments on the presentation:
- Long paragraphs of sections 2, 3.1, 3.2, and 5 are difficult to digest. I suggest using some visual cues like italicizing, underlining, or bolding.
- Generally, although readable, the low-level writing has typos, missing nouns/dashes, and other issues. I suggest putting the paper through an automatic syntax checker like Grammarly.
- Bold winning cells in Tables 1 and 2
A couple of comments on the article's title:
- Should it be "context-based" instead of "context based"? (Same goes for "Knowledge based learning" in the keywords.)
- The title is a bit wordy. Is "for autonomous agents" really necessary? It seems that only autonomous agents would be interested in traversability. Alternatively, please consider other ways to shorten.
Minor:
- p1l12: "in 1" -> "in Figure 1"
- p1l22: "Conversely explicit" -> "Conversely, explicit"
- p1l47: "world model[41]" -> "world model[41]"
- p5l2, p5l6: missing references
- subsections in Section 4 should not have a 0 (so probably \subsubsection -> \subsection)
- something went wrong with the math mode at the bottom of p17
