Addressing Reviewers’ remarks Sample Clauses

Addressing Reviewers’ remarks. The major remark for WP 3 from the reviewers’ comments is the way in which the hardware- mapped algorithms are compared against software implementations in terms of performance. They have remarked that hardware implementation has to be compared against optimum software implementations and this has to be done for the proper datasets. Especially for the datasets from social networks the reviewers have recommended diversity, and not to restrict data sets just from Twitter. Below we describe in more details the reviewers’ remarks, while Table 2 clarifies the actions performed to address main reviewer’s remarks. Reviewers' remark 1: ―When comparing hardware and software implementations make sure that the software baselines used for comparison are state of the art implementations (in terms of efficiency). However, it is likely the case that other algorithms become more appropriate –and efficient- solutions for prediction. We therefore encourage TSI to keep close track of this issue and implement the most promising methods for the task(s) at hand.” In order to address the reviewers’ remarks on D3.2, the WP3 QualiMaster partners have been in closer cooperation with WP5 to select the proper optimum implementations to compare against. For the SVM implementation, the D3.2 presented results are against the well know LibSVM implementation, which is used as a library for several platforms, including Matlab. The Count Min structure integrated with Exponential Histograms (ECM Sketch) was compared against the official software implementation. For Transfer Entropy we compare our own hardware and software implementations against the software presented in [23] which involves the same algorithmic implementation as well as similar time series datasets. Regarding our Mutual Information implementation there is no optimized software implementation for financial or social network data but only for image processing and so we compared the hardware implementations against WP5 implementations. For the Hayashi Yoshida algorithm there was no official distribution or optimized implementation to our knowledge, therefore we compare hardware performance against WP5 distributed software implementation. Reviewers' remark 2: “Evaluations should use larger collections of data. Try to move to evaluation designs with larger collections of data” In cooperation with WP5 the data sets were selected to be representative for the algorithms and the cases that QualiMaster aims to cover. We used both synt...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Addressing Reviewers’ remarks. The reviewer’s remarks from the 2nd year annual review were focusing on the hardware performance measurements, proposing comparisons against multithread software implementation and use of larger data sets. WP3 partners use the official distribution of software to compare with, and if possible do it with the distributor as in the ECM sketch algorithm. For the Hayashi Yoshida algorithm, comparisons are made with the corresponding multithreaded solution when mapped to distributed platform using the Storm framework. Official distribution of the Mutual Information algorithm is coded in the R-Project, which has inherently low performance. Transfer Entropy as was presented in [4] was implemented in C which proved not to be optimized. For that reason WP3 partners had to rewrite themselves the software in the C programming language, which proved to be 19 times faster than R-Project and 2.5 times faster than the original software for the Transfer Entropy. For this reason, our home-developed highly optimized software was used for performance comparisons. Data sets that are used are real life data from stock exchange markets and were provided by Spring.

Related to Addressing Reviewers’ remarks

  • Response/Compliance with Audit or Inspection Findings A. Grantee must act to ensure its and its Subcontractors’ compliance with all corrections necessary to address any finding of noncompliance with any law, regulation, audit requirement, or generally accepted accounting principle, or any other deficiency identified in any audit, review, or inspection of the Contract and the services and Deliverables provided. Any such correction will be at Grantee’s or its Subcontractor's sole expense. Whether Xxxxxxx's action corrects the noncompliance shall be solely the decision of the System Agency.

  • AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.

  • SUBMISSION OF THE MONTHLY MI REPORT 4.1 The completed MI Report shall be completed electronically and returned to the Authority by uploading the electronic MI Report computer file to MISO in accordance with the instructions provided in MISO.

  • OIG INSPECTION, AUDIT, AND REVIEW RIGHTS ‌ In addition to any other rights OIG may have by statute, regulation, or contract, OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) may conduct interviews, examine or request copies of Xxxxxx’x books, records, and other documents and supporting materials and/or conduct on-site reviews of any of Xxxxxx’x locations for the purpose of verifying and evaluating: (a) Xxxxxx’x compliance with the terms of this IA and (b) Xxxxxx’x compliance with the requirements of the Federal health care programs. The documentation described above shall be made available by Xxxxxx to OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) at all reasonable times for inspection, audit, and/or reproduction. Furthermore, for purposes of this provision, OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) may interview Xxxxxx and any of Xxxxxx’x employees or contractors who consent to be interviewed at the individual’s place of business during normal business hours or at such other place and time as may be mutually agreed upon between the individual and OIG. Xxxxxx shall assist OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) in contacting and arranging interviews with such individuals upon OIG’s request. Xxxxxx’x employees and contractors may elect to be interviewed with or without a representative of Xxxxxx present.

  • Servicer Compliance Statement On or before March 1 of each calendar year, commencing in 2007, the Servicer shall deliver to the Owner and any Depositor a statement of compliance addressed to the Owner and such Depositor and signed by an authorized officer of the Servicer, to the effect that (i) a review of the Servicer’s activities during the immediately preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its performance under this Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement during such period has been made under such officer’s supervision, and (ii) to the best of such officers’ knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, specifically identifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and the status thereof.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Rate Redetermination for Environmental Modification In the event of a contract modification under B8.33 or partial termination under B8.34, Contracting Officer shall make an appraisal to determine for each species the difference between the appraised unit value of Included Timber remaining immediately prior to the revision and the appraised unit value of Included Timber to be cut under the modification. The appraisal shall consider the estimated cost of any construction work listed in the Schedule of Items that was performed and abandoned. Tentative Rates and Flat Rates in effect at the time of the revision will be adjusted by said differences to become Current Contract Rates. Accordingly, Base Rates shall be adjusted to correspond to the redetermined rates if redetermined rates are less than the original Base Rates, subject to a new Base Rate limitation of the cost of essential reforestation or 25 cents per hundred cubic feet or equivalent, whichever is larger. However, existing Base Indices shall not be changed under this Subsection. Redetermined rates, or differences for rates subject to B3.2, and Required Deposits shall be considered established under B3.1 for timber Scaled subsequent to the contract revision.

  • Annual Independent Accountants’ Servicing Report If the Master Servicer (or any of its Affiliates) has, during the course of any fiscal year, directly serviced, as a successor Servicer, any of the Mortgage Loans, then the Master Servicer at its expense shall cause a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants to furnish a statement to the Securities Administrator, any NIMS Insurer and the Depositor no later than five Business Days after the 15th of March of each calendar year, commencing in March 2006 to the effect that, with respect to the most recently ended calendar year, such firm has examined certain records and documents relating to the Master Servicer’s performance of its servicing obligations under this Agreement and pooling and servicing and trust agreements in material respects similar to this Agreement and to each other and that, on the basis of such examination conducted substantially in compliance with the audit program for mortgages serviced for Xxxxxxx Mac or the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (or such other attestation program as may be required by applicable law or regulation), such firm is of the opinion that the Master Servicer’s activities have been conducted in compliance with this Agreement, or that such examination has disclosed no material items of noncompliance except for (i) such exceptions as such firm believes to be immaterial, (ii) such other exceptions as are set forth in such statement and (iii) such exceptions that the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or the Audit Program for Mortgages Serviced by Xxxxxxx Mac (or such other attestation program as may be required by applicable law or regulation) requires it to report. Copies of such statements shall be provided to any Certificateholder upon request by the Master Servicer, or by the Trustee at the expense of the Master Servicer if the Master Servicer shall fail to provide such copies. If such report discloses exceptions that are material, the Master Servicer shall advise the Trustee whether such exceptions have been or are susceptible of cure, and will take prompt action to do so.

  • Annual Statement as to Compliance, Notice of Servicer Termination Event (a) To the extent required by Section 1123 of Regulation AB, the Servicer, shall deliver to the Trustee, the Owner Trustee, the Trust Collateral Agent and each Rating Agency, on or before March 31 (or 90 days after the end of the Issuer’s fiscal year, if other than December 31) of each year (regardless of whether the Seller has ceased filing reports under the Exchange Act), beginning on March 31, 2019, an officer’s certificate signed by any Responsible Officer of the Servicer, dated as of December 31 of the previous calendar year, stating that (i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year (or such other period as shall have elapsed from the Closing Date to the date of the first such certificate) and of its performance under this Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision, and (ii) to such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all material respects all its obligations under this Agreement throughout such period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, identifying each such failure known to such officer and the nature and status of such failure.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.