X-Git-Url: https://mattmccutchen.net/match/match.git/blobdiff_plain/b43dc33a304037bf4c0d916ca706fa1a14cbb8cf..d221184e1fe94a2a0fd031ce8fc1a8875468ee19:/paper/paper.tex

diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex
index a332681..e8222a4 100644
--- a/paper/paper.tex
+++ b/paper/paper.tex
@@ -69,11 +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.
@@ -162,21 +162,21 @@ other benefits.
 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 paper
+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
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ 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,
@@ -263,14 +263,14 @@ to the scenario and document the experience gained.
 \section{Getting the Tool}
 
 A distribution containing the source code for the matching tool as well as this
-document may be browsed or downloaded at (NOT YET):
+document may be browsed or downloaded at:
 \[\hbox{\url{https://mattmccutchen.net/match/}}\]
 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}
