X-Git-Url: https://mattmccutchen.net/match/match.git/blobdiff_plain/17e0995d8f3673797f5280189e28e727db454f7f..08f65a95a67fa8835b97a387d9d1e285972ca22a:/paper/paper.tex

diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex
index 7ce6770..fd0bd2c 100644
--- a/paper/paper.tex
+++ b/paper/paper.tex
@@ -21,7 +21,6 @@
 
 \usepackage[letterpaper,left=2.6cm,right=2.6cm,top=2.6cm,bottom=2.6cm]{geometry}
 
-\usepackage{floatflt}
 \usepackage{pstricks}
 \usepackage{delarray}
 
@@ -70,11 +69,11 @@ thirty to forty program committee members.
 From now on we will focus on the problem of assigning papers to
 reviewers. 
 We assume that each reviewer is given access to the
-list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``desirability''
+list of papers to be reviewed, and gives each paper both a ``preference''
 score indicating his/her level of interest in reviewing the paper and an
 ``expertise'' score indicating how qualified he/she is to evaluate the paper.
-(Some organizations may choose to use a single set of scores for both
-desirability and expertise. We believe that making this distinction may better
+(Some organizations may use a single preference score and assume that it
+also indicates expertise. We believe that making the distinction may better
 model the real-world objective.)
 A reviewer may also declare a conflict of interest with a particular paper,
 meaning that he/she is forbidden to review the paper.
@@ -140,8 +139,8 @@ Flow can pass from $s$ through one or more of the nodes $r^t_i$ and
 one or more of the nodes $p^t_j$ to the sink to represent a review
 by reviewer $i$ of paper $j$.
 
-Each paper has an edge of capacity $r$ to
-the sink, indicating that it needs $r$ reviews.  In general, these
+Each paper has an edge of capacity $q$ to
+the sink, indicating that it needs $q$ reviews.  In general, these
 edges will constitute the min cut, so any max flow will saturate them
 and thereby provide all the required reviews.  We take the min-cost
 max flow in order to provide the reviews in the ``best'' possible way.
@@ -160,24 +159,24 @@ to a solution that loads one reviewer by $L$ and the other by $L+2$
 unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
 other benefits.
 
-For each reviewer $i$ and proposal $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
+For each reviewer $i$ and paper $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
 to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
 conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present.  The edge cost is
-based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for proposal
+based on the preference value $a_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for paper
 $j$.  For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost
-function $(10 + d_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
+function $(10 + a_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
 really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a
 good matched pair and an excellent one.  This choice seeks only to achieve a
 natural relationship between a linear preference scale as normally interpreted
 and the costs to be used in the optimization.  We realize that strategic
-reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what desirability
+reviewers will take the cost function into account in choosing what preference
 values to submit, in which case its form matters little.
 
 Alongside these purely additive per-review costs,
 we want to avoid an individual reviewer
 getting too many papers he/she does not like.
 With respect to a reviewer $i$, we classify papers as ``interesting'',
-``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their desirability values;
+``boring'', or ``very boring'' based on their preference values;
 the thresholds for these classes are currently
 the same for all reviewers.  The edge for reviewer $i$ and paper
 $j$ leaves from $r^1_i$ if $j$ is interesting, $r^2_i$ if $j$ is boring, or
@@ -205,15 +204,15 @@ unit-capacity edge of cost $-c_1$ from $p^1_j$ to $p^3_j$.
 In addition to the bonus edges,
 there are edges of zero cost and unlimited capacity that reviews can follow
 from $p^1_j$ to $p^2_j$ and from $p^2_j$ to $p^3_j$ in order to reach the sink.
-The choice to offer bonuses for two reviews was based on the value $r = 3$;
-this would be easy to change for other values of $r$.
+The choice to offer bonuses for two reviews was based on the value $q = 3$;
+this would be easy to change for other values of $q$.
 
 In the example in Figure~\ref{flow-fig},
 paper 1 is interesting to reviewer 1 and boring to reviewers 2 and 3.
 Reviewer 2 is expert on paper 1, with reviewers 1 and 3 merely knowledgeable.
 (Reviewer edges for paper 2 are not shown.)
 This illustrates how, in principle,
-the desirability and expertise relations might differ.
+the preference and expertise relations might differ.
 Each is taken into account at a different stage of the construction.
 
 The cost of a flow (assignment) is the sum of its reviewer overload costs,
@@ -269,9 +268,9 @@ document may be browsed or downloaded at (NOT YET):
 There are currently two branches:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item \code{master} has the tool as originally designed for NSF, with no
-distinction between desirability and expertise.
+distinction between preference and expertise.
 \item \code{popl2012} is the basis of the version used for POPL 2012.  The main
-differences are that it has separate desirability and expertise, support for
+differences are that it has separate preference and expertise, support for
 ``fixing'' previously chosen reviewer-paper pairs (buggy, however),
 and the special ERC gadget.
 \end{itemize}
