Tags:
create new tag
view all tags
Why do we publish our reviews?

Paper L. Meng, S. Liu, A. Striegel, "Analyzing the Impact of Proximity, Location and Personality on Smartphone Usage," in Proc. of INFOCOM Workshop on Dynamic Social Networks (DySON), April 2014. Review

Reviews

=== Workshop Review 1 ===

* Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do = you consider them important? Comment on the novelty, creativity, impact, and = technical depth in the paper.

Nowadays, with the increasing popularity of smartphones and the wide range = of applications available on mobile devices, wireless traffic has = experienced tremendous growth in the past few years. The authors explore = the interplay of user proximity, friendship, location, and personality type = on device and application usage. In particular, they analyzed i) the = impact of user density (i.e. the number of nearby mobile devices) on = data consumption and application usage; ii) the impact of personality on = traffic consumption and application distributions; iii) the impact of = location and how location interplays with application usage / consumption. = Experiments were conducted considering seventy-eight smartphone users over = an entire semester at the University of Notre Dame. Experiments show that 1) friendship in proximity has a significant impact = on traffic consumption; 2) personality tends to impact application = preference / consumption; and 3) applications can have significantly = different contextual usages based on the location.

* Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

Not astonishing, but the paper is clear and shows well presented = experiments.

* Weaknesses: What are the major reasons NOT to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

The authors state they used a user-level agent to collect information in = their experiments. Details regarding such an agent are omitted.

* Detailed Comments: Please provide detailed comments that will help the = TPC assess the paper and help provide feedback to the authors.

The authors explore the interplay of user proximity, friendship, location, = and personality type on device and application usage. Experiments show how = friendship impacts on traffic consumption; personality impacts application = preference / consumption; and applications usage varies with the = location.

This is a well written paper. The description is fluent and clear. The topic = is well introduced and related works are enough detailed. The paper is = mainly experimental. In Section III, the authors state they used a = user-level agent to collect information in their experiments. Details = regarding such an agent are omitted. A few details regarding this agent = are required. Experiments are well presented.

There are a few typos and grammatical errors to be fixed. For example: eg. -> e.g., [3]-[5] -> [3], [5] studies oto -> studies to i.e. -> i.e.,

* Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Expert (I conduct(ed) active research work in this topic) (4)

* Recommendation: Your overall rating (Please try giving as few = borderlines as possible). weak accept (4)

=== Workshop Review 2 ===

* Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do = you consider them important? Comment on the novelty, creativity, impact, and = technical depth in the paper.

The paper provides an in depth study of smartphone usage. it could be a = good reference for statistical parameters.

* Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

The paper provides different statistic that could be useful for further = experiments and models

* Weaknesses: What are the major reasons NOT to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

The statistics could be provided in a better, newer fashion, using = visualization and maybe aggregation among metrics. The histograms are old style.

* Detailed Comments: Please provide detailed comments that will help the = TPC assess the paper and help provide feedback to the authors.

Overall, the paper is well written and interesting, even if the description = of metrics, parameters and results could be improved. However it could be useful as reference for further modelling works.

* Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Novice (I am not familiar with research work in this area, and serve as an = outsider reviewer) (1)

* Recommendation: Your overall rating (Please try giving as few = borderlines as possible). weak accept (4)

=== Workshop Review 3 ===

* Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do = you consider them important? Comment on the novelty, creativity, impact, and = technical depth in the paper.

This paper proposes the so called Protecting Location Privacy with = Clustering Anonymization method for location-based services in vehicular = networks which transforms a road network into an edge-cluster graph in order = to conceal road information and traffic information.

* Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

- Advantage over other algorithms that cannot be used in vehicular networks = due to constrained vehicular mobility. - The strength of hiding information is used to measure information = associated with the road map and the said edge-cluster graph.

* Weaknesses: What are the major reasons NOT to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

- The attack model seems fairly simple and somewhat stands out from the est = of the paper.

* Detailed Comments: Please provide detailed comments that will help the = TPC assess the paper and help provide feedback to the authors.

The paper is well written and provides a substantial mathematical component = being, at the same time, supported with simulation analysis. Also the = vehicular networking related theme is very relevant to the currently = promoted trend of moving towards applied research.

* Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Familiar (I am well aware of research work in this topic) (3)

* Recommendation: Your overall rating (Please try giving as few = borderlines as possible). strong accept (5)

=== Workshop Review 4 ===

* Contributions: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do = you consider them important? Comment on the novelty, creativity, impact, and = technical depth in the paper.

This paper analyzes the impact of proximity density, personality and = location categories on traffic consumption and application distributions.

The idea of analyze user behavior in terms of traffic consumption is = novelty , the proposed solution is interesting and can be useful in = practice, but the paper does not provide very much theoretical and technical = analysis.

* Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

The paper addresses an interesting topic.

* Weaknesses: What are the major reasons NOT to accept the paper? [Be = brief.]

(1)The method of data collection and experiment is not detailed enough; (2)Some of the technical details need to be clarified; (3)The relevant research background is not exhaustive; (4)Part of the text did not relate with the core research content.

* Detailed Comments: Please provide detailed comments that will help the = TPC assess the paper and help provide feedback to the authors.

(1)The other methods similar to this paper work need to be researched and = introduced deeply;

(2)How to deployed a user-level agent to collect a wide variety of = information including network traffic, application traffic, location, phone = call, text message, email, browser history, screen usage time, and various = other aspects should be introduced detailed.

(3)The conclusion about the average screen on traffic for each of the five = personality with different scores is questionable.

(4)The analysis of chosen applications is not complete and not enough.

* Familiarity: Rate your familiarity with the topic of the paper. Some knowledge (I am marginally aware of research work in this topic) (2)

* Recommendation: Your overall rating (Please try giving as few = borderlines as possible). weak reject (2)

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | More topic actions
Topic revision: r1 - 2014-02-12 - AaronStriegel
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback