From 4e46fa87d610ebac8714bb0f8926cae13c99333d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt McCutchen Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:11:01 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix remaining mentions of "proposal" in the paper. Pointed out by Dr. Hicks. --- paper/paper.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex index 7ce6770..a61daa3 100644 --- a/paper/paper.tex +++ b/paper/paper.tex @@ -160,10 +160,10 @@ 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 desirability value $d_{ij}$ 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 really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a -- 2.34.1