Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of Computing But What If I Don't Want

合集下载

your manuscript is under consideration

your manuscript is under
consideration
"Your manuscript is under consideration" 是一个在学术、出版等领域常用的短语，表示你提交的稿件正在被审查或考虑的过程中。

这通常是在你向期刊、出版商或其他机构提交研究论文、文章或其他书面作品后收到的回复。

当你收到这样的通知时，意味着你的稿件已经被接收并且正在进行评估。

评估过程可能包括编辑的初步审查、同行评审（由该领域的专家对你的稿件进行评估）或其他相关的审查程序。

这是为了确保出版物的质量、准确性和学术价值。

在稿件被考虑期间，你通常会被要求等待一段时间，以便编辑和评审人员完成审查工作。

这个过程的时间长度可能因不同的机构和出版物而有所不同，一般需要几周到几个月的时间。

在等待期间，你可以继续进行其他的研究工作或准备其他的稿件。

如果你有任何疑问或需要进一步的信息，你可以与相关的编辑或出版机构联系，了解更多关于稿件的审查进度。

最终，编辑或评审人员会根据他们的评估结果做出决定，并通知你稿件的命运。

这可能是接受、要求修改、拒绝或其他可能的结果。

无论是什么结果，他们通常会提供详细的反馈和建议，帮助你改进你的作品。

总的来说，"Your manuscript is under consideration" 是一个常见的回复，表示你的稿件正在被评估和审查的过程中，你需要耐心等待结果。

这是学术和出版领域中的正常程序，旨在确保出版物的质量和学术标准。

期刊投稿状态以及回复信件模板

1.第一次投稿Cover letter：主要任务是介绍文章主要创新以及声明没有一稿多投Dear Editors:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ……(简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××2) Name B E-mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信：询问稿件处理到声明步骤Dear Prof. ×××:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor”has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments.Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards!Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (I D: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red inthe paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。

under consideration 和under review

under consideration 和under review
「Under consideration」和「under review」都表示某事物正在被考虑或者审议。

然而，它们的用法和含义略有不同。

「Under consideration」表示某事物正在被考虑，通常用于指代被讨论或评估的问题、建议或提案。

它意味着该事物正处于很活跃的状态，但尚未作出决定或得到最终批准。

当某个问题仍在讨论中或正在等待决策者的确认时，可以说该问题仍然「under consideration」。

例如：
- The proposal is currently under consideration by the board of directors.
（该提案目前正在董事会考虑中。

）
「Under review」更倾向于指某事物正在被审查或审核，通常用于指代文件、申请、报表或其他相关文件的审查过程。

这意味着相关方正在仔细检查、分析和评估所提交的材料，通常是为了确定其合规性、准确性或可行性。

一般会有专门的人员或部门负责审查，以便做出决定或建议。

例如：
- Your job application is currently under review.
（您的工作申请目前正在审核中。

）
总结来说，两者区别在于「under consideration」指的是讨论或
评估问题或提案，而「under review」则指的是文件或材料的评估和审核。

under review之后under consideration

under review之后under consideration（原创版）目录1.文本背景及目的2."Under Review"的含义3."Under Consideration"的含义4.两者的区别与联系5.总结正文本文旨在解释在学术界和商业环境中经常出现的两个术语："Under Review"和"Under Consideration"，并探讨它们之间的区别和联系。

"Under Review"通常用于描述一篇论文、研究报告或出版物在经过同行评审或编辑评估过程中的状态。

在这个阶段，作者可能已经提交了最终稿，并正在等待专家的反馈和建议。

这个过程可能需要一些时间，因为评审人员需要仔细阅读和评估作品的质量、原创性和贡献。

一旦评审结束，作者将收到关于修改或改进的建议，以便最终确定作品是否被接受或发表。

"Under Consideration"则用于描述一个想法、建议或申请正在被认真评估或考虑的过程中。

这个阶段可能发生在公司或组织内部，也可能发生在学术或出版领域。

在这个阶段，决策者需要对提议的内容进行深入研究和分析，以确定其潜在的影响和价值。

这个过程可能涉及与相关方面的讨论和协商，以确保最终的决策是公正和平衡的。

尽管"Under Review"和"Under Consideration"在某些情况下可能表达相似的含义，但它们在使用场景和侧重点上有所不同。

"Under Review"强调的是作品在经过专业评审过程中的状态，而"Under Consideration"则强调的是决策者在权衡和评估建议或申请时的状态。

尽管如此，两者都表明了一个过程正在进行中，并且结果尚未确定。

总之，了解"Under Review"和"Under Consideration"这两个术语的含义和用法对于在学术界和商业环境中进行有效沟通至关重要。

Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of Computing Concurrency and Refineme

Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of ComputingConcurrency and Reﬁnement in the Uniﬁed Modeling LanguageJim Davies and Charles CrichtonOxford University Computing Laboratory,Wolfson Building,Parks Road,Oxford,UKAbstract.This paper deﬁnes a formal semantics for a subset of the Uniﬁed Modeling Language(UML). It shows how suitable combinations of class,object,state,and sequence diagrams can be associated with patterns of interaction,expressed in the event notation of Communicating Sequential Processes(CSP). The diagram semantics is then extended to give a meaning to complete models—suitable combinations of diagrams—and thus a concurrency semantics for object models written in UML.This model semantics is in turn used to deﬁne a theory of reﬁnement,based upon existing notions of data and process reﬁnement. Keywords:Uniﬁed Modeling Language;Object-oriented Design;Object Modelling;Concurrency;Reﬁne-ment;Communicating Sequential Processes.1.IntroductionThe evolution of the Uniﬁed Modeling Language(UML)[OMG01]is of tremendous signiﬁcance for the ﬁeld of software engineering.The deﬁnition of a single framework in which to place the sketches,diagrams, pictures,and formulae that shape and communicate our understanding of complex designs is a welcome development,and the widespread acceptance of this framework makes it an ideal vehicle for the application of formal,mathematical techniques.In this paper,we show how object models described using the diagram notations of UML can be au-tomatically translated into a formal language of interaction:Hoare’s Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP)[Hoa85].The behavioural properties of these designs—the order in which messages may be sent, the possible consequences of concurrent execution of certain operations,whether a particular scenario is possible—can then be calculated and explored.We show also how the existing reﬁnement orderings deﬁned upon processes can be applied to the be-havioural reﬁnement of object-oriented designs.The question of whether one design is a suitable refactoring of another can be reduced to a question of behavioural reﬁnement:that is,a question of whether every behaviour of one design is allowed for in the description of the other.The resulting theory of reﬁnement for object models is supported by existing reﬁnement-checking technology[FSE].Our translation requires more than just a semantics for the individual diagram notations:it requires a Correspondence and oﬀprint requests to:Jim Davies,Oxford University Computing Laboratory,Wolfson Building,Parks Road, Oxford,OX13QD,UK.e-mail:Jim.Davies@2J.Davies and C.Crichton behavioural semantics for the models that are produced when these notations are used in combination.We will express both diagram and model semantics in terms of CSP events and processes.As our aims include facilitating automatic analysis,we will employ the machine-readable dialect of CSP[Ros97],which can be used as input to animation and reﬁnement-checking tools.The paper begins with a review of the various diagram notations that we have chosen to support: class diagrams,object diagrams,state(or statechart)diagrams,and sequence diagrams.This is followed, in Section3,by an explanation of how these diagrams can be given a behavioural semantics in terms of machine-readable CSP.In Section4,we show how the diagram semantics can be extended to give a meaning to complete object models,in terms of the sequences of actions that may be performed,and the sets of actions that may be blocked.We show how—by associating state diagrams with operations—we can create models that are adequate for the description of the concurrent execution of multiple operations upon the same object.This model semantics can be used to deﬁne theories of reﬁnement for object models written in UML. In Section5,we show how diﬀerent notions of process and data reﬁnement can be put to practical use in the analysis and development of object models written in UML.The paper ends with a discussion of the prospects for automated analysis,and a review of related work.2.Object modellingA model in UML is a collection of diagrams,illustrating diﬀerent aspects of a design,together with related properties or requirements.Each of these diagrams conveys some information about the architecture,at-tributes,and behaviour of the system being modelled.As we might expect,the UML documentation asserts that“Every complex system is best approached through a small set of nearly independent views of a model. No single view is suﬃcient.”[OMG01,Section1.2.2]We might expect,too,that two diﬀerent models—two diﬀerent combinations of diagrams—could be used as descriptions of the same system.To demonstrate the use of the diﬀerent diagram notations,we will consider a model of a simple com-munication protocol,whose only dynamic property of interest(at our chosen level of abstraction)isﬂow control:the transmitter waits for an acknowledgement that a message has been output by the receiver before accepting another for transmission.In each case,our interpretation of the diagram notation will be just one or many possible interpretations: other semantics may be deﬁned with diﬀerent purposes in mind.Indeed,even the formal translations that we produce could be completed in diﬀerent ways.The processes that we use to represent the implicit mechanisms for event communication and operation invocation are just one way of resolving the semantic variation points in the UML speciﬁcation[OMG01].2.1.Class diagramsA class diagram identiﬁes the entities in the system,and describes the potential relationships between them.It provides structure to a behavioural semantics—giving the signatures of objects—and places constraints upon reachable conﬁgurations,but does not directly describe the behaviour of any component.Such a diagram comprises a number of class boxes,and a number of lines—representing associations—between them.Each class box may have up to three partitions below the name box,listing attributes,operations,and signals,respectively.Some associations may be implemented as attributes:in this case,the value of the attribute is a reference to another object(or a collection of objects).An association line can show the navigability of the relationship(using arrowheads),its multiplicity,and the names used in reference.The operations of a class may be described as synchronous or asynchronous,and may be subject to diﬀerent degrees of concurrency control:the concurrency attribute of an operation explains whether that operation may be invoked concurrently with other operations on the same object.The class diagram may describe also the signature of each operation:the argument and result types.A typical implementation for an UML operation is a method or function call in the target programming language.Signals are an abstract,asynchronous means of communication.Although signals may be implemented in the same way as operations,they are more likely to correspond to sequences of calls,perhaps involving the use of a package or library that has not been modelled.The class diagram may list the names of the signals that can be received by each class.Concurrency and Reﬁnement in the UML3Fig.1.A class diagram for the simple protocolFig.2.An object diagram for the simple protocolA class diagram may include also information about inheritance:which classes are deﬁned as extensions of others.This may have a bearing upon the behavioural semantics,in that there may be a choice of (implementations of)operations that could be invoked in response to a particular call.The structure of our semantics allows for the subsequent addition of a selection mechanism,but the automatic determination of such a mechanism from information in the class diagram is left as a subject for separate,future study.The class diagram for our simple protocol is given in Figure1;it identiﬁes the two main protocol components—a transmitter and a receiver—as well as two abstract,interface entities—a user and a lis-tener.The association between the transmitter and the receiver tells us that each is capable of referring to the other.The transmitter will use the name rec for the receiver object that it knows about;the receiver will use the name trans for the transmitter object.The associations are all1to1:a user object will refer to a single transmitter object,a transmitter will refer to a single receiver,and a receiver will refer to a single listener.In this model,the listener is unable to refer to the receiver:the association between these two classes is navigable only in the other direction.All communication in this model is described in terms of signals:the user may send an in signal to the transmitter,which may send a message signal to the receiver,which may send an out signal to the listener. The receiver may send an ack signal to the transmitter,which may send a ready signal to the user.The class diagram tells us which events may be sent;the state diagram will tell us how the arrival of one event may trigger actions,such as the sending of another event.2.2.Object diagramsObject diagrams are class diagrams in which only instances—or objects—are present.Such a diagram can be used to describe a particular state of the system,or to characterise a region of the state space—each object may be annotated with a constraint upon attribute values.In a behavioural semantics,an object diagram can be used to describe an initial conﬁguration.In the object diagram of Figure2,the association instance(or link)between transmitter and receiver is stereotyped as reliable,to indicate that signals are reliably transmitted between the objects.In UML,the fact that two objects are linked in an object diagram does not mean that communication between them is necessarily reliable,whether in terms of signal transmission or operation invocation.4J.Davies and C.CrichtonFig.3.State diagrams for the transmitter and receiver classes2.3.State diagramsA state diagram describes the behaviour of an object or operation in terms of the performance of actions in response to the arrival of events.We will consider two kinds of events:call events and signal events.The occurrence of a call event corresponds to the beginning on an execution of an operation upon the current object;the occurrence of a signal event corresponds to the successful arrival of a signal.The possible eﬀects of an event are described by labelled transitions between states in the state diagram.Each transition may be labelled with a trigger event,a guard,and a sequence of actions.If an event occurs,and there is a corresponding transition starting from the current state,then the guard is evaluated.Should the guard prove to be true,based on the values of the object attributes,and any attributes associated with the event itself,then the sequence of actions will be performed:the future behaviour of the object is then described by the target state of the transition.Should the guard prove to be false,then the event will be discarded,and the object will remain in the current(source)state.Some of the transitions in a diagram may have no trigger events:these are called completion transitions, and areﬁred as soon as the source state is entered(and any entry actions have been completed).An important feature of the state diagram language is the run-to-completion property:following the occurrence of an event, no further events will be accepted until every action triggered by that event,including those associated with any subsequently-enabled completion transitions,has been performed.The state diagram notation contains many other features:notably,entry and exit actions,change events, prioritised and timed transitions,and composite states.The semantics of diagrams using entry and exit actions is easily derived from the semantics of equivalent diagrams in which these actions are prepended and appended to the relevant transitions.The other features require extensions to the semantics presented here: suitable extensions are discussed in Section7.Figure3presents two state diagrams:one for the transmitter class,and another for the receiver.A transmitter object can be in one of two states:it is ready for a new message from its client,or it is waiting for an acknowledgement from the receiver.The arrival of a new message m is represented by an occurrence of the event in(m);this has the eﬀect of sending a signal message(m)to the receiver rec.There is no blocking of signal events:unless it is still completing a sequence of actions triggered earlier, an object will accept any signal.However,if there are no transitions labelled with that signal,and if it is not explicitly deferred by the current state,then the signal will be immediately discarded.In Figure3,if an in event arrives while the transmitter is in the Waiting state,then it will be discarded;similarly,if an ack arrives when the transmitter is in the Ready state,then it will be discarded.Concurrency and Reﬁnement in the UML5Fig.4.A sequence diagram2.4.Sequence diagramsA sequence diagram describes a scenario in terms of messages sent between various objects.The messages are presented as horizontal lines labelled with the name of an event or operation.The objects are boxes with a vertical,broken line descending from them;the objects may be anonymous,or they may be named according to the attributes and associations presented in the class diagram for the current model.The vertical,broken lines—called lifelines—are used to impose a temporal order upon the messages presented.Where two message lines begin(or end)at the same lifeline,the message whose line is nearer the top of the diagram must be sent(or received)before the other.Moving down a lifeline corresponds to the passage of time.A sequence diagram may represent the creation(or destruction)of one of the objects involved by explicitly starting(or ending)a lifeline within the diagram.In the sequence diagram of Figure4,all of the objects have been created before the scenario,and none are destroyed during it.This diagram illustrates a desirable behaviour of our simple protocol,in which a single message m is passed from the User to the Listener via the two objects of our protocol.The features presented here form only a small subset of those available within the sequence and interaction diagram languages of UML.Our use of the notation here is purely as an indication of what could be achieved.2.5.Operation diagramsThe UML documentation admits the possibility of multiple,concurrent calls of operations upon a single object.Each operation has a concurrency attribute,which may take one of three values:•sequential:concurrent calls on the same object should be avoided;•guarded:concurrent calls are permitted,but the operations will be executed sequentially;each new execution will be blocked until the previous execution has completed;•concurrent:concurrent calls are permitted,and the operations may be executed concurrently;the cor-responding sequences of transitions and actions may be interleaved.This information—which would normally be presented in the class diagram—can be carried forward from the model to an implementation,using features such as the synchronized mechanism in Java.If we attempt to include information about the progress of multiple executions of diﬀerent operations within a single‘object’state diagram,the result is likely to be unreadable.The possibility of concurrent execution multiplies the number of states that may be of interest;any operation may be associated with a state space of its own,describing its progress through the various actions and conditions that its performance may entail.The eﬀect of an action may depend upon the value of temporary variables or objects—the local state of the current execution—as well as the value of object attributes.6J.Davies and C.CrichtonFig.5.Printer class diagramFig.6.Printer state diagramEven the behaviour of a class with a single operation could become diﬃcult to describe if this operation had more than two points at which it reads from,or writes to,the attributes of the object.Such an approach would require also a relaxation of the run-to-completion assumption for state diagrams:if a single diagram is to describe the eﬀect of concurrent execution,then the underlying state machine must be able to accept a second call event before the action sequence corresponding to theﬁrst has been completed.The only practical solution is to use a diﬀerent state diagram for each compound operation:that is,for each operation that has more than one point of interaction with the shared state;the eﬀect of any other, atomic operation can still be represented as a single transition,triggered by a call event,on the main state diagram.We will use the term operation diagram for a state diagram that has been used to describe the behaviour of an operation.As an example of this approach,consider how we might describe the behaviour of objects of the Printer class shown in Figure5.Objects of this class have a single,integer-valued data attribute called alarm,and two operations print and service;neither operation expects an argument or a return value.There are also several signals:start,stop,open,and close.The object state diagram for the printer class is shown in Figure6.This diagram does not include call events for either operation,but instead shows how the state space of the printer object can be partitioned into two regions:Idle and Printing.The diﬀerence between the two regions lies in the eﬀect of the open event:if the current state of the printer is in Printing,then this event leads to a state in which all events will be ignored,and both operations will be blocked;this last eﬀect is achieved by setting the single attribute alarm to a non-zero value.Each operation is described by a separate operation(state)diagram:both are shown in Figure7.The labelling of the initial transitions is a(suggested)notational short-cut,indicating that the execution should be blocked if this condition is not true.The same result can be produced by adding an additional state, immediately following the initial one,with a guarded choice of completion transitions.In this example,the two operations do not make assignments directly,but instead act upon the shared state by sending signals. Apart from fulﬁlling the original need for a model that can describe concurrent execution,this approach hasConcurrency and Reﬁnement in the UML7Fig.7.Printer operation state diagramsthe additional advantage of separating two concerns:the deﬁnition of(an abstraction of)the state,and the description of the operations.We should emphasise that it is impossible to describe the eﬀects of concurrent execution,or the invocation of an operation upon the current object,without adopting this operation diagram approach(as a corollary, we might observe that it is thus impossible to describe recursive operations in a single UML state diagram). The only alternative would be to relax the run-to-completion assumption,which would render the state diagram notation all-but-unusable.The language of operation diagrams is a sublanguage of that of state diagrams:an operation diagram cannot accept call events,except for the initial,implicit call event that creates an instance.The state diagram that describes the chosen abstraction of the attribute state may have call events,but only for operations that are atomic at the current level of abstraction.3.Diagram semanticsTo construct a formal semantics for a UML diagram,we require a mapping from the graphical constructs to some mathematical domain:this mapping is a formal equivalent of the existing informal semantics for the diagram language—an explanation of what each construct means.There are many ways in which we might deﬁne this mapping,depending upon the purpose to which the resulting semantics will be put.As is the case with programming languages,a likely purpose for a formal semantics is to predict and reason about patterns of behaviour.Architectural and static properties are relatively easy to deduce;it is behaviour—and in particular,concurrent behaviour—that is harder to comprehend.For that reason,we will concentrate upon the construction of a formal semantics that is adequate for the analysis of behaviour:one that tells us how the system as described may evolve,in terms of interactions visible at its interface.In this section,we explain how individual diagrams may be mapped to processes; in the following section,we will see how to combine these processes to obtain the semantics of a complete model.Our presentation here is exemplary:an explicit semantic function would need to map documents that deﬁne UML models to documents that deﬁne CSP representations.In this paper,we describe this function in terms of its eﬀect upon simple UML models.Its implementation,which requires mechanisms for namespaces, dynamic binding,and polymorphic channels in CSP,is a challenge in itself.3.1.Process notationIn the language of CSP,processes are deﬁned in terms of the occurrence and availability of abstract events: atomic,synchronous,communications.In the machine-readable dialect,events are introduced as elements of channels.For example,the declarationchannel c:A.B8J.Davies and C.Crichton introduces a set of compound events,each of the form c.a.b,where a is drawn from the set A and b is drawn from the set B.Following such a declaration,we may use the expression{|c|}to refer to all of the events whose names start with the preﬁx c.The preﬁx process a->P is ready to perform the event a;if this event is performed,the future behaviour of this process is described by term P.The symbol[]denotes an external choice of(sets of)behaviours:a menu of possible interactions.The external choice symbol may be used in both binary and indexed forms. For example,the process[]i:I@a(i)->P(i)represents an external choice over all of the processes a(i)->P(i):the resulting process is ready to engage in any event of the form a(i),for i in I,and then behave as the process P(i).The input choice expression c?x->P(x)represents an external choice in which every alternative begins with an event from the channel set{|c|}.The corresponding output expression c!v->P is no choice at all:any variables appearing in the value expression v must already have been declared.(The process language is declarative,in that any variable takes a value at the point of declaration,and retains that value for the remainder of its scope).We will often use a combination of?and!to abbreviate a complex,indexed external choice over a set of compound events,in which some components are already determined.The expression c?x!d?y!e->Pdenotes an external choice in which the values of x and y—the symbols preceded by a question mark—are drawn from the set of all possible values for that component of the channel,and the values of d and e are ﬁxed.We might expect the future behaviour P to be parameterised by x and y.The internal choice symbol|˜|denotes an internal choice of(sets of)behaviours.A process described as P|˜|Q will behave as P or as Q.The choice is not exclusive,in that both alternatives may be made available.We use this notation to represent a choice made within the current component,or—at least—on the far side of this interface.For example,the(indexed)internal choice|˜|i:I@P(i)represents a component whose behaviour may be any of P(i).(In the machine-readable dialect,the indexing set I must beﬁnite).The interrupt operator/\has the eﬀect of adding an external choice to every event menu present in the expansion of itsﬁrst argument.For example,(a->b->P)/\Q=a->b->(P/\Q)[]Q[]QWe will use this operator P whenever we have a complex pattern of behaviour that may be interrupted—permanently—by the beginning of another pattern Q.Processes are usually composed using a binary parallel operator,which speciﬁes the set of events to be shared between its two arguments:the set of events that can occur only if performed simultaneously by both processes.The expression P[|A|]Q denotes the parallel combination of two processes,P and Q,sharing every event in the set A.If the shared set is empty,we write|||,rather than[|{}|].Either form of parallel combination may be used in preﬁx,indexed form;as in the case of internal choice,the indexing set must beﬁnite.In CSP,sharing does not entail concealment:shared events remain visible,and may be subsequently shared with other components.The hiding operator is used to conceal,or internalise,sets of events:the expression P\A denotes a process that behaves exactly as P,except that events from the set A are no longer visible:they may not be shared with,and do not require the cooperation of,other processes.As processes are deﬁned entirely in terms of their(remaining)external events,use of the hiding operator may mean that the resulting process is undeﬁned,or divergent.This situation is quite diﬀerent from that of the(fully-deﬁned) process STOP,which can perform no events,and is used to represent the end of a pattern of behaviour.Concurrency and Reﬁnement in the UML9 The let...within...construct allows for the scoping of process names;deﬁnitions made between let and within apply only for the term immediately following within.There are Bool and Int datatypes, for Boolean and integer values,respectively.Other types may be introduced using datatype deﬁnitions;for example,the deﬁnitiondatatype BinaryTree=empty|node.Int.BinaryTree.BinaryTreedeﬁnes a type of binary trees with integer values at the nodes.This is only the briefest of introductions to the process language:a more comprehensive introduction can be found in[Hoa85]or[Ros97].3.2.Actions and eventsOur behavioural semantics will be deﬁned as a translation from object models to processes.We must begin, however,with an explanation of how the actions and events of our object models are to be translated into abstract(CSP)events.With the exception of local actions,actions and events will be represented as a compound abstract events,in which two of the components are used to identify the source and target of the abstract communication.If the communication represents the semantics of an operation call,then it may produce one of three results:if the operation in question may be invoked concurrently,and thus has its own operation(state) diagram,then a new state machine will be created to process the event;if the operation may not be invoked concurrently,and does not have its own diagram,then the event will be processed by the state machine representing the object;if the operation is a constructor(a create operation),then it will be processed by the class,and a new state machine will be created,representing a new object.Each state machine will be represented as a separate process.The source and target of each abstract communication will be processes representing state machines: objects,operation executions,or classes.3.2.1.ActionsA call action corresponds to a call of an operation.The start of the action can be represented as a compound event of the formcallAction.from.to.operation.argumentswhere from is the reference of the source process,to is the reference of the target,operation is the name of the operation,and arguments are the call parameters.A return action corresponds to the completion of an operation,from the point of view of the called operation(and its associated object).It can be represented as a compound event of the form returnAction.from.to.operation.valuewhere to is the reference of the original caller object,from is the reference of the original target,and value is the returned value.A send action corresponds to the sending of a signal,and will be represented as a compound event of the formsendAction.from.to.signal.argumentswhere from is the reference of the caller object,to is the reference of the target,signal is the name of the operation,and arguments are the call parameters.A create action corresponds to the creation of a new object.In our semantics,this action will be repre-sented as a pair of compound events:the eventcallAction.from.to.create.argumentsrepresents the beginning of the action,and a corresponding returnEvent its completion.The value associated with this second event will be the reference of the new object created.A destroy action corresponds to the destruction of an object;this is an asynchronous operation,and may be represented as a single event of the form。

修改稿cover,letter模板

修改稿cover,letter模板篇一：SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览(Cover letter,催稿信等) 一、最初投稿Cover letterDear Editors:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of inter est exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not beenpublished previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ?? (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Name AE-mail: ××××@××××2) Name BE-mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信Dear Prof. ×××:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hearfrom you on the reviewer’s comments.Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards!Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:On behalf of my co- authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructivecomments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, whichwe would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ××××××。

Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of Computing A Formal Relationship Be

Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of ComputingA Formal Relationship Between Program Slicing and Partial EvaluationDavid W.Binkley1,Sebastian Danicic2,Mark Harman3and Lahcen Ouarbya21Department of Computer Science,Loyola College,4501N.Charles Street,Baltimore,Maryland21210-2699,USA;2Department of Computing,Goldsmiths College,University of London,New Cross,London SE146NW,UK.3Department of Computer Science,King’s College London,Strand,London WC2R2LS,UK.Keywords:Conditioned Program Slicing;Partial EvaluationAbstract.A formal relationship between program slicing and partial evaluation is established.It is proved that for terminating programs,a residual program produced by partial evaluation is semantically equivalent to a conditioned slice.1.IntroductionPartial evaluation and slicing are both program specialisation techniques that attempt to simplify a program. Partial evaluation[JGS93]involves the evaluation of static computation,while slicing[BH04,Tip95]involves the removal of parts of the program which do not aﬀect the values of selected variables at execution points of interest.Both techniques have common applications including optimisation,program comprehension,dependence analysis and testing[BF98,CHM+98a,Das98,DFM96,DHN98,Ers78,JR94,HD97].It may be productive, in the future,therefore,to explore the similarities and diﬀerences between partial evaluation and slicing and to investigate hybrid approaches that combine the two.In spite of this,research on partial evaluation and slicing has largely been conducted by two disjoint communities and so there has been relatively little work on the similarities and diﬀerences between the two techniques and none which establishes any formal relationship between the two.This paper explores these similarities and diﬀerences,establishing a formal relationship between the residual program of partial evaluation and a form of slice known as a conditioned slice[CCD98,DFHH00, DDH+02,DDH04,FDHH04,DDF+04,HHD+01,FHHD01,HHF+02].The paper uses a program projection2 D.Binkley,S.Danicic,M.Harman,L.Ouarbyaframework[HBD03,HD97]that allows for the deﬁnition of various forms of program projection,which preserve only a projection of the original program’s semantics.The rest of this paper is organised as follows:Sections2and3brieﬂy review partial evaluation and slicing respectively.A semantics that is preserved by slicing is given in Section4.Section5introduces the theoretical framework of program projection which allows diﬀerent transformation methodologies to be compared.It is shown how diﬀerent slicing techniques can be expressed using the framework of Section5and the semantics of Section4.Section6expresses partial evaluation in terms of the framework in order to formally compare it with slicing.It is established that a residual program of a terminating program is semantically equivalent to a conditioned slice.Section7describes some applications of the theoretical results of the paper,showing how partial evaluation and amorphous slicing can be combined to produce amorphous conditioned slices and how the precision of syntax preserving conditioned slicing could be improved using information from partial evaluation.Section8presents related work and Section9summarises the paper.2.Partial EvaluationMany programs contain computations that can be performed at compile time.Optimising compilers exploit such computations by pre-computing their values.Partial evaluation(also known as mixed computation) takes this process one step further by allowing some of the inputs to a program to be statically determined(or statically‘bound’).By propagating that binding-time information‘forward’through the program,additional static computations can be identiﬁed.Static computations can be performed at compile time,often reducing the program’s size and run time.Partial evaluation was originally considered as an extension of compiler theory,used as a means of im-proving eﬃciency[Ers78]and of creating compilers and compiler generators from interpreters[Fut71,Fut99a, Fut99b,JSS89].Initial work concerned declarative languages,for which the semantics were comparatively ‘clean’[BHO+76,GJ89,JSS85,Har78,Ste75].Consequently,the propagation of binding time information was deﬁnable in terms of the formal semantics of the programming language concerned.More recently, partial evaluation-based approaches to software engineering[CHM+98a],program comprehension[BF98], state-based testing[DHN98]and multimedia computing[Dra98]have been explored.The initial work on declarative language partial evaluation has also been extended to the imperative programming paradigm, most notably by the early work on[And92,GJ91,KKZG95]and by more recent work on partial evaluation using dependence graphs by Das[Das98]and the Tempo partial evaluation system for a large subset of the C programming language[CHM+98b].Algorithms for partial evaluation typically consist of two phases:an initial Binding Time Analysis(BTA) followed by a manipulation phase(called‘specialisation’).The result of this specialisation is a program, called the residual program.Some authors[RT96,SGJ94]use the term‘specialisation’to describe the more general concept of tailoring a program to a speciﬁc task.This nomenclature includes both partial evaluation and slicing as special cases of specialisation.Example.Consider the power program in Figure1(in order to simplify the following example,it will be assumed that the input to a program is taken from those variables that are referenced before being deﬁned. This will allow program fragments and whole programs to be considered in a similar way).Suppose the value of n is determined to be4.The results of BTA for this program are shown in the right-hand sections of theﬁgure(S indicates that a variable is determined to be static at the associated point,D indicates that it is determined to be dynamic).Using the results of BTA,it can be seen that the variable n remains static throughout the computation and therefore it will be safe to specialise the program by unfolding the loop controlled by n.This specialisation phase leads to the construction of the residual program in Figure2.As originally formulated[BHO+76,Ers78,Fut71,Har78,JSS85,Ste75],the residual program was con-structed with respect to the instantiation of selected inputs withﬁxed values.Futamura and Nogi[FN87] introduced a more generalised form of partial evaluation,in which residual programs are constructed with respect to a set of initial states characterised by aﬁrst order predicate logic expression on input variables. Gl¨u ck and Sørensen[GS96]cite four varieties of partial evaluator.These are•Monovariant,where each function of the original program results in at most one function in the residual program.•Polyvariant where each function of the original program may result in more than one function in the residual program.A Formal Relationship Between Program Slicing and Partial Evaluation3r=1;D S Swhile(n>0)D S D{n=n-1;D S Dr=r*x;}D S Dprintf("%d",r);D S Dr=1;r=r*x;r=r*x;r=r*x;r=r*x;printf("%d",r);base=2;count=0;for(i=0;i<N;i++)for(i=0;i<N;i++){if(A[i]%base==0){count++;R[N-i-1]=A[i];R[N-i-1]=A[i];}}b=(A[0]==R[0]);b=(A[0]==R[0]);b=(A[0]==A[N-1]);Fig.3.Amorphous and Syntax-preserving Slices4 D.Binkley,S.Danicic,M.Harman,L.Ouarbyamaintenance[GL91],testing[Bin98,Bin97,GHS92,HD95,HHD99,HHF+02],program integration[HPR89, BHR95]and software conformance certiﬁcation[KS98].There are several surveys of slicing,techniques and applications[BG96,HH01,De01,Tip95].In addition to capturing a projection of a program’s semantics,the original application of slicing required a syntactic property:a slice must preserve a projection of the original program’s syntax.Traditionally,slicing has used a‘statement deletion’for this projection largely for historical reasons.This derives from the original application of slicing[Wei79]to debugging,where the motivation for slicing was to remove statements and associated control structures that could not have been responsible for an error.The importance of this syntactic requirement varies from application to application.For re-engineering,program comprehension and testing it is primarily the semantic property of a slice that is of interest.Conditioned slicing[CCD98]is the act of simplifying a program assuming that the states of the program at certain chosen points in its execution satisfy certain properties.What distinguishes conditioned slicing from other forms of slicing is mainly its implementation[DFHH00,DDH+02,FDHH04,DDF+04].Conditioned slicing combines the standard techniques of slicing with symbolic execution and theorem proving.Conditioned slicers are required to reason about the validity of paths under certain conditions using symbolic execution and automated theorem proving.The simplifying power of the conditioned slicer depends on two things:1.The precision of the symbolic executor which handles propagation of state and path information.2.The precision of the underlying theorem prover which determines the truth of propositions about statesand paths.By using an approximation to a program’s semantics using a form of symbolic execution,and by being willing to accept approximate results from the theorem proving itself,conditioning allows us to adopt reasoning that does not require the full force of inductive proofs.The theorem proving used in programming conditioning is lightweight when compared to the theorem proving required for a complete formal analysis of a program. As in the case of traditional slicing,conditioned slicing only simpliﬁes programs by deletion.Semantically,as will be seen later,conditioned slicing is very closely related to both traditional slicing and partial evaluation.Amorphous slicing[HBD03]is a variation of slicing,in which simpliﬁcation is not limited to statement deletion.For this reason it is clearly closer to partial evaluation than the other forms.To illustrate,consider the example in Figure3.The original program reverses the array A,keeping a count(in the variable count) of the number of array elements which are exactly divisible by base.The program also records whether or not theﬁrst and last element of the array are identical(in the variable b).The integer N(the size of the array A),is a compile-time constant.The array A is an input parameter to the program fragment.The original program is in the leftmost column of theﬁgure.The syntax-preserving end-slice for the value of the variable b is in the central column and the amorphous slice is in the rightmost column of theﬁgure.Figure3makes it clear that amorphous slices can be smaller than their syntactically constrained counter-parts.Of course,it is a more challenging problem to compute amorphous slices.Recently proposed algorithms [Bin99,HHZM01]represent initial attempts at addressing this problem.Notice also that the variable base is statically determined,and so it could be‘partially evaluated away’in the original program and in its syntax-preserving end-slice.Since N is also statically determined,the loop can also be replaced by a sequence of N assignments.The combination of these partial evaluation steps together with syntax-preserving end-slicing,could almost produce the amorphous slice,as shown in Figure4. This suggests that amorphous slicing might be achievable as a combination of syntax-preserving end-slicing and partial evaluation.However,the program produced by mixing partial evaluation and syntax-preserving end-slicing,is only valid slice because the computation was static for the unwanted array elements,R[i]for (i<N)and the unwanted variables base and count.Had the value of N or base been inputs,then partial evaluation would have had no eﬀect.However,this example shows that there is a connection between the residual program of partial evaluation and amorphous forms of program slicing.This observation motivates the formal examination of this connection which follows.4.Semantics of SlicingOriginally,program slicing was deﬁned in terms of an algorithm[Wei79].Informally,this algorithm simpliﬁed programs both syntactically,and semantically.Given a program P and a set of variables J,Weiser’s algorithm produces a program P′smaller than P which‘behaves the same’with respect to J.Weiser,in fact proved that in all states where P terminates,P′also terminates and agrees with P on all the variables in J.A Formal Relationship Between Program Slicing and Partial Evaluation5 Original Partially Evaluated Syntax-Preserving end-slice for b1Other authors have produced semantics which they claim to be preserved by slicing.These include the lazy semantics of Cartwright and Felleisen[CF89]and the transﬁnite semantics of Giacobazzi and Mastroeni[GM03].6 D.Binkley,S.Danicic,M.Harman,L.OuarbyaM:P→Σ⊥→Σ⊥s kip statementM[[abort]]σ ⊥Assignment statementsM[[S1;S2]]σ M[[S2]](M[[S1]]σ)i f statementsM[[w hile(b)S]] ﬁx(λf·λσ·E[[b]]σ→f(M[[S]]σ),σ)Fig.5.Standard Semantics for a Simple Procedural language.Deﬁnition1(det:E→P(V)).Given an expression e,det(e)is deﬁned as follows:1.For all x∈det(e),there exists two statesσ1,σ2diﬀering only on x such that:E[[e]]σ1=E[[e]]σ2.2.For all x∈det(e),and for all statesσ1,σ2diﬀering only on x,E[[e]]σ1=E[[e]]σ2.If det(e)contains a variable which has⊥as a value inσ,then the whole expression is evaluated to⊥inσ. Otherwise the lazy value,E L,of an expression is the same as its strict value,E.The meaning of an expression in our lazy semantics is the function,E L:E→Σ⊥−→V⊥.given by E L eσ ⊥if∃v∈det(e)withσv=⊥.E eσotherwise.The lazy meaning of a program is given by the function M L,which,as in the case of standard semantics, is a state to state function:M L:P−→Σ⊥−→Σ⊥.Lazy semantics of the s kip statementM L[[abort]]σ σUnlike in standard semantics,the lazy meaning of the abort statement is the same as lazy meaning ofA Formal Relationship Between Program Slicing and Partial Evaluation7Program p Program q Program r Program sM L[[x=e]]σ σ[x←E L[[e]]σ]As in standard semantics,the meaning of an assignment is obtained by updating the state with the new value of the variable assigned to it.In the case of lazy semantics,this value is the lazy value of the corre-sponding expression.Since in lazy semantics,there are states which map some variables to proper values and other variables to⊥,the assignment rule implies that a variable can‘recover’from being undeﬁned as demonstrated by program p in Figure6,where after the loop x has the value⊥but it recovers to5 after the assignment x=5.Lazy semantics of the statement sequencesM L[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σ E L[[B]]σ→M L[[S1]]σ,M L[[S2]]σ,M L[[S1]]σ⊓M L[[S2]]σwhereσ1⊓σ2,the meet ofσ1andσ2,is deﬁned asλi·σ1(i)=σ2(i)→σ1(i),⊥and the notation a→b,c,d is shorthand for if a is true return b otherwise if a is false return c otherwise if a is⊥return d and the notation a→b,c is shorthand for if a is true return b otherwise return c.The diﬀerence between this and standard semantics is when the guard evaluates to⊥.If a variable x is assigned diﬀerent values in the t hen and e lse parts its lazy value will be⊥.On the other hand,if the value of x is the same in the t hen and e lse parts then this should be itsﬁnal value even if the guard is ⊥,as,in this case,the value of x does not depend on the guard.Consider,for example,program q in Figure6.Given an initial stateσ={x→1,y→1,z→⊥},the value i f predicate,z>0inσis⊥.However,theﬁnal value of the variable x is1whichever branch of the conditional is executed.For this reason,the lazy value of the variable x after executing program q in σis deemed to be1.8 D.Binkley,S.Danicic,M.Harman,L.OuarbyaThe value of the variable y has diﬀerent values after executing the t hen branch from when executing e lse branch,and hence,theﬁnal value of the variable y is⊥2.Before the lazy meaning of a w hile loops can be given,loop unfoldings,W n(B,S)for each n∈I N are deﬁned:W0(B,S) abortW n+1(B,S) i f(B){S;W n(B,S)}e lse s kipLazy semantics of w hile loops2Unlike this semantics,the value of the variable x after executing program q in Figure6in the stateσwhen using the lazy semantics by Cartwright and Felleisen[CF89]or the transﬁnite semantics by Giacobazzi and Mastroeni[GM03]is⊥.This is a result of the fact that their semantics loses all information about the variables deﬁned in the t hen or e lse parts of an i f statement in states where its predicate is undeﬁned.A Formal Relationship Between Program Slicing and Partial Evaluation 9That is,the syntax must not ‘get worse’as a result of projection of a program,while the semantics of the projected program must remain equivalent to the original.Deﬁnition 3(A program transformation satisﬁes a projection).A program transformation f satisﬁes a (<∼,≈)–projection if and only if for all programs p ,f (p )is a (<∼,≈)–projection of p .Clearly,every program transformation satisﬁes the weakest (<∼A ,≈A )–projection where p <∼A q and p ≈A qfor all programs p and q .Trivially,if a technique satisﬁes a particular (<∼,≈)–projection then it satisﬁes all weaker projections.The weakest projection is useless as it tells us nothing.Clearly the stronger projection that we ﬁnd,the more precisely we capture behaviour.The purpose of the projection framework is to capture the behaviour of each technique or algorithm suﬃciently strongly to at least distinguish it from other techniques.Alternatively,the projection framework can be used in the inverse manner for not categorising but deﬁning classes of algorithms.We may deﬁne,say,a ζ–transformation to be any transformation which satisﬁes (<∼ζ,≈ζ)–projection where <∼ζis a given ordering and ≈ζis a given equivalence as deﬁned above.ing the Framework to Express SlicingThe projection framework has successfully been used to categorise a variety of slicing techniques.As an introduction to the projection framework it is shown how three kinds of slices:(traditional)syntax-preserving slices,amorphous slices,and conditioned slices are categorised using it.This subsection describes the syntactic and semantic relations for these three kinds of slices.It is then shown how partial evaluation can also be expressed using the framework.5.1.1.Syntax-Preserving SlicingIt is helpful in discussing slicing to think of each line of a program as a single (labelled or numbered)node of a program’s Control Flow Graph (CFG).The following deﬁnition formalises the oft-quoted remark:“a slice is a subset of the program from which it is constructed.”It deﬁnes Syntax-Preserving Ordering ,the ordering for syntax-preserving slicing,denoted <∼SP .(In the sequel,subscripts are added to <∼and ≈to distinguish diﬀerent instantiations of the respective relations.)Deﬁnition 4(Syntax-Preserving Ordering).Let F be a partial function which takes a program and returns a function from line numbers to statements,such that the function F (p )maps l to c iﬀprogram p contains the statement c at line number l .Syntax-preserving syntactic ordering is deﬁned as follows:p <∼SP q ⇔F (p )⊆F (q ).Deﬁnition 5(End-Slice Equivalence).Given two programs p and q ,and a set of variables V ,p is end-slice semantically equivalent to q ,written p ≈V SPq ,if and only if for all states σ,for all variables v ∈V ,M L [[p ]]σv =M L [[q ]]σv.Instantiating Deﬁnitions 4and 5into Deﬁnition 2,the following deﬁnition of an end-slice is obtained:Deﬁnition 6(Syntax-Preserving End-Slice).Program q is a Syntax-Preserving End-slice of program p with respect to set of variables V if and only if qis a (<∼SP ,≈V SP )–projection of p .5.1.2.Amorphous SlicingTo deﬁne amorphous slicing,only the syntactic relation needs to be altered;the semantic relation remains the same.For amorphous slicing,a natural choice for a syntactic relation is that p is less than q if it contains10 D.Binkley,S.Danicic,M.Harman,L.Ouarbya fewer statements.Such a deﬁnition of the syntactic relation naturally depends upon how statements are to be counted.The approach adopted in this paper,in keeping with the spirit of slicing,is to count the nodes in the CFG [HRB88,OO84].Deﬁnition 7(Amorphous Syntactic Ordering).Let F (p )be the number of nodes in the CFG of program p .The amorphous syntactic relation,<∼AS ,is deﬁned as follows:p <∼AS q ⇔F (p )≤F (q )Deﬁnition 8(Amorphous Semantic Equivalence).≈AS =≈SPDeﬁnition 9(Amorphous Static Slicing).Program q is an amorphous static slice of program p with respect to the set of variables V if and only if qis a (<∼AS ,≈V SP )–projection of p .Amorphous slicing subsumes (i.e.,it is weaker than)syntax-preserving end-slicing because <∼SP ⊆<∼AS and ≈AS =≈SP .As a consequence of this,any implementation of syntax-preserving slicing is also an implementation of amorphous slicing,albeit a rather sub-optimal implementation.Therefore,there will always be an amorphous slice which contains no more CFG nodes than the syntax-preserving end-slice constructed for the same set of variables.Of course,there will often be an amorphous slice which contains fewer nodes than the corresponding syntax-preserving end-slice.This makes amorphous slicing attractive when preservation of syntax is unimportant.5.1.3.Conditioned SlicingFinally,conditional slicing is deﬁned in the projection framework.As will be seen,the residual program produced by partial evaluation is most closely related to a conditioned slice [CCD98].Traditionally [CCD98,DFHH00]conditioned slices have been constructed by statement deletion.Thus,the deﬁnition of the con-ditioned slice syntactic ordering is the same as the syntax-preserving ordering used for syntax-preserving end-slicing.Deﬁnition 10(Conditioned Syntactic Ordering).The conditioned syntactic relation,<∼CS ,is deﬁned as follows:<∼CS =<∼SPFor example,the conditioned program in Figure 7is ‘lower’than the original program according to <∼CS ,because the conditioned program contains a subset of the statements of the original.The semantic equivalence preserved by conditioned slicing is deﬁned as follows:Deﬁnition 11(Conditioned Semantic Equivalence).Program p ′is conditioned equivalent to program p with respect to (V,Σ),written p ≈(V,Σ)CSp ′if and only if ∀σ∈Σ,∀v ∈V,M L [[p ]]σv =M L [[p ′]]σvThat is,for a set of states Σand variables V conditioned slicing preserves the values of variables in V when the program is executed in a state in Σ.For example,the conditioned program in Figure 7is conditioned equivalent to the original with respect to (x,y )when x is the set of all program variables and y is the set of all possible states,since the conditioned program and the original produce identical answers for all variables in all states.Combining these two deﬁnitions into the framework yields:Deﬁnition 12(Conditioned Slice).Program q is a conditioned slice of program p with respect to the slicing criterion (V,i )if and only if q is a (<∼CS ,≈(V,Σ)CS )–projection of p .Original program Conditioned programThe syntactic ordering used in partial evaluation also diﬀers from that used in both syntax-preserving and amorphous slicing.There are situations where the two relations will agree,for example,both would allow3the transformation[[x=x+2;x=x-1;]]⇒[[x++;]]However,there are also situations where the two relations disagree.This occurs,for example,when a transformation reduces the number of CFG nodes,but increases the execution time.In this case amorphous slicing allows the transformation,but residualisation does not.The preceding discussion indicates that partial evaluation is both semantically and syntactically diﬀerent from slicing(though bothﬁt the projection framework deﬁned in Section5).However,there are similarities between the two approaches to program specialisation.Speciﬁcally,setting aside the diﬀerences between the syntactic ordering for slicing and partial evaluation,we will prove the following statement can be made about the relationship between partial evaluation and conditioned slicing.Theorem6.1.Let q be a residual program constructed from a program p,with respect to a set of statesΣIf q terminates in all statesσinΣthen q is semantically equivalent to a conditioned slice of p constructed with respect to the slicing criterion I−(SV(p,Σ),Σ).Since partial evaluation is deﬁned in terms of strict semantics,M,and conditioned slicing in terms of lazy semantics M L,weﬁrst need a result which says that a terminating program’s lazy and strict meanings are identical:Proposition1.Let P be a program andσbe a state inΣ,then M[[P]]σ=⊥=⇒M L[[P]]σ=M[[P]]σ. Proof.This is proved by structural induction over the language being considered.s kip statementThe result is vacuously true as,M[[abort]]σ=⊥for allσinΣ.Assignment statementsLetσbe a state inΣwith M[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σ=⊥.Then it follows that E L[[B]]σ=E[[B]]σ=⊥asσis a state inΣ.If E L[[B]]σ=True,then M[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σis reduced to just M[[S1]]σand M L[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σis reduced to just M L[[S1]]σand the result follows immediately from the induc-tion hypothesis.Similarly,if E L[[B]]σ=False as M[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σis reduced to just M[[S2]]σand M L[[i f(B)S1e lse S2]]σis reduced to just M L[[S2]]σ.Sequences3This transformation is allowed by the deﬁnition of partial evaluation,but is not typically exploited in partial evaluation systems.Letσ∈Σwith M[[S1;S2]]σ=⊥.Hence,M[[S2]]M[[S1]]σ=⊥and M[[S1]]σ=⊥.The result follows immediately by application of the semantics rule for sequences and the induction hypothesis:M L[[S1;S2]]σ=M L[[S2]]M L[[S1]]σ(by deﬁnition)=M[[S2]]M[[S1]]σ(induction hypothesis)=M[[S1;S2]]σ.While loops7.ApplicationsThe correspondence between partial evaluation and conditioned slicing has potential practical applications in program slicing.This section illustrates some of these potential applications,by showing how existing partial evaluation and slicing techniques could be combined in order to improve slicing.Consider the example in Figure8.In this example,there are four program fragments.These will be referred to by points of the compass.The original program is the northerly program fragment.Previous work on conditioned slicing could be applied to this program fragment in an attempt to reduce the program, using knowledge gleaned from the symbolic states of the program as it is symbolically executed.For the purpose of this discussion,it will be supposed that the set of states with respect to which the conditioning takes places is the set of all possible states.Applying the existing approaches to conditioning[DDF+04,FDHH04]the program would not be sim-pliﬁed,because current approaches to conditioning have no ability to explore multiple loop executions.For example,using the tool ConSUS[DDF+04],the conditioned slice obtained is the entire program.ConSUS combines symbolic execution with theorem proving to obtain conditioned slices.The symbolic executor works out path conditions,while the theorem prover is used to determine which statements must fail to be executed due to the values of these path conditions.ConSUS can recognise some situations where a loop fails to exe-cute and can exploit limited information about the symbolic execution of the loop,but it fails to detect that the test if total>10is redundant.This is because the symbolic execution does not symbolically execute the unfolded body of the loop.However,if the program were to have beenﬁrst partially evaluated,then the loop body would have been ing this unfolded loop body,the symbolic executor would be able to provide more information about the terminating state of the loop to the theorem prover,allowing it to determine that the test if total>10is redundant.This would lead to the improved syntax preserving conditioned slice in the easterly quadrant.This conditioned slice is thinner than that produced by any existing tool for conditioned slicing, showing that the combination of partial evaluation and conditioned slicing can produce improvements in existing conditioned slicing approaches.A more dramatic improvement in slicing technology is obtained by exploiting the combination of amor-phous slicing and partial evaluation.Amorphous slicing is known to reduce the size of slices because it allows transformation to be applied[De01,DDF+04,HBD03,War02].This is to be contrasted with syntax–preserving slicing which allows only statement deletion.It would be desirable to construct a tool for amorphous conditioned slicing.Such a tool would im-prove the simpliﬁcation power of static syntax–preserving slicing,both because it would be amorphous(not syntax–preserving)and because it would be conditioned(not static).Hitherto,no such slicing tool has been constructed;it has proved hard toﬁnd eﬀective algorithms for syntax–preserving conditioned slicing,so amorphous conditioned slicing would seem to be an even harder problem.Ward[War03]has shown how a form of amorphous conditioned slicing(called a semantic slice)could be produce by combining the transfor-mations of FermaT[War99]with slicing,but he gives no general algorithm for semantic slicing.The existence of eﬀective algorithms for amorphous conditioned slicing therefore remains an open problem.The combination of amorphous static slicing and partial evaluation may yield algorithms for amor-phous conditioned slicing.Consider the program in the southerly quadrant of Figure8.This program is an amorphous conditioned slice of the original program in the northerly quadrant.Currently,no slicing tool is available which can produce this program and there are no algorithms in the literature for amorphous conditioned slicing.Applying partial evaluation(using a tools like tempo[CHM+98b]),to the original program in the northerly quadrant,the residual program in the westerly quadrant is obtained.By applying amorphous slicing to this residual program(using a tool like LinIAS[HHM+04])the desired amorphous conditioned slice in the southerly quadrant is obtained.The primary role of this paper is theoretical;it demonstrates the correspondence between slicing and partial evaluation.However,the importance of this result is likely to be the application of the connection between the two,in work on practical techniques for computing slices.The tantalising observations in this section show that it is possible to combine existing techniques for amorphous slicing and partial evaluation to produce amorphous conditioned slices;a form of slicing for which there are no currently existing techniques.。

under consideration的审稿状态

Under Consideration的审稿状态一、什么是Under Consideration的审稿状态Under Consideration是一种审稿状态，常见于学术界、出版界以及其他需要对文稿进行评审的行业。

审稿是指由专业人士对投稿的论文、学术论文、专著等进行评估、审查和鉴定的过程。

而Under Consideration则是其中的一种状态之一。

二、Under Consideration的含义1.评审中：当一篇稿件处于Under Consideration状态时，说明该稿件已经被提交给审稿人或编辑进行评审，正在经历评审过程中。

2.未决状态：Under Consideration状态下的稿件尚未得到最终决定，无论是被接受还是被拒绝。

3.挂起：某些情况下，稿件可能会被暂时挂起，处于Under Consideration状态。

这可能是由于审稿人尚未回复、编辑正在等待其他专家的意见，或者正在等待相关程序的执行。

三、Under Consideration状态的特点1.时间不确定：Under Consideration状态下的稿件的审稿时间不确定，可能会长时间持续，作者需要耐心等待审稿结果。

2.专家评审：一般来说，处于Under Consideration状态的稿件会由相关领域的专家进行评审。

他们会对论文的学术价值、研究方法、实验结果等方面进行评估，然后给出意见或建议。

3.修改可能性大：由于专家评审的结果，稿件可能需要进行修改。

在UnderConsideration状态期间，作者可能需要根据审稿人的意见进行修改和完善。

四、Under Consideration状态的意义和影响1.学术认可：被接收进Under Consideration状态是稿件获得学术界认可的一种体现，也说明该稿件具有一定的学术价值，值得深入研究和发表。

2.学术交流：被接收进Under Consideration状态后，作者可能会与审稿人或编辑进行交流，讨论有关稿件的问题，进一步完善研究成果。

如何向国外期刊投稿

如何向国外期刊投稿当我们撰写好一篇学术论文后，接着要做的工作就是投稿，下面我们简要介绍一下如何向国外期刊投稿和注意事项。

投稿一般来说，投稿程序分以下三步进行：1 ，准备投稿信（ covering letter ， submission letter ）科技期刊的编辑往往需要一些有关作者和作者论文的信息，而作者也希望给编辑提供一些有助于其全文送审及决策的信息。

这些信息都应该包括在投稿信中。

投稿信应包括以下几方面的内容：?文章题名和所有作者的姓名；? 稿件适宜的栏目；? 为什么此论文适合于在该刊而不是其它刊物上发表?关于重复或部分发表或已投它刊的说明；? 转让版权的说明；? 建议审稿人及因存在竞争关系而不宜做审稿人的名单；?通信作者（ corresponding author ）的姓名、详细地址、电话和传真号码、e-mail 地址；? 是否愿意付出版费（版面费、彩图费）的说明（如果该刊收取版面费和彩图费）；? 希望该校样或稿件若不接收，退回原稿的要求（有的期刊在“投稿须知”中约定，除非作者在投稿信中提出要求，否则原稿不退还给作者）投稿信举例：Dear Dr ．：Enclosed are three copies of a manuscript by Rose N ． Dipaola ， Don na A ． Gallo ， and Tom N ．Roberts titled “ Hepatitis C Virus Inf ection in Long-Term Transfusion Patients ”． It is submitted to be c onsidered for publication as a “ Original Article" in your journal ．This paper is neither the entire paper nor any part of its content ha s been published or has been accepted elsewhere ． It is not being su bmitted to any other journal ．We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal because the study it reports stated the HCV infection ra te among long-term transfusion patients is higher than that of the ge neral population and of short-term transfusion patients ．Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to Rose N ． Dipaola at the following address ， phone and fax number ，and e-mail address ：Rose N ． Dipaola ， MDInstitute of Internal MedicineCleveland Clinic Foundation9500 Euclid Ave ．Cleveland ， OH44195 ， USATel ： 1-216-444-5360Fax ： 1-216-444-9580E-mail ： dipao@cesmtp ． ccf. OrgThanks very much for your attention to our paper ．Sincerely yours ，Rose N ． Dipaola2. 稿件包装所谓稿件包装是指将稿件及其拟投期刊所需的伴随资料一并装入信封。

投稿外文的几个阶段

running head是什么是你对论文标题的总结，用最简短的几个单词表述出来..给自己题目用一个很简短的句子或单词表达出来。

就是出版时，在页眉上出现的东西，不能太长，可出用简称，能体现你文章的价值的句子female reproductive toxicity and mechanism of HDovarian toxicity and relevant mechanism of HDcover letterHere within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be published on " Journal of Applied Toxicology ****". The further information about the paper is in the following:The Title:The Authors:This paper is about the ******The authors claim that none of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere. Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to****at the following address，phone and fax number，and e-mail address：Corresponding author:Tel:Fax:E-mail：Thanks very much for your attention to our paper.Sincerely yours,Dear Editors:On behalf of my co-authors,I am submitting the enclosed material “Apoptosis of Rat Ovarian Granulosa Cells by 2,5-hexanedione in vitro and its Relevant Gene Regulation” for possible publication on “Journal of Applied Toxicology”. The authors claim that none of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.Thank you very much for your considering our manuscript for potential publication. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon..Here is our Contact information:Corresponding author: Wenchang ZhangTel.: 86-0591-********;Fax:0591-********;E-mail address: wenchang2008@Thanks very much for your attention to our paper.Best Regards,Yours Sincerely.COVER LETTER 实用指南1、什么是cover letter？指的是投稿信2、cover letter的内容主要包括那些？应该简述所投稿件的核心内容、主要发现和意义，拟投期刊，对稿件处理有无特殊要求等（如“not to review” list）。

学术期刊投稿状态中“under consideration”含义

学术期刊投稿状态中“under consideration”含义
“Under consideration”是学术期刊投稿过程中常见的一种状态，通常表示编辑部正在审查或评估提交的论文或稿件。

当你的论文被期刊接收并进入审查程序后，编辑部通常会安排一到数名专家对论文进行评审，这个过程可能需要几天到几周不等，具体时间取决于期刊的审稿程序和编辑部的工作效率。

在审稿过程中，编辑部通常会与作者保持沟通，以更新审查进度和提供必要的反馈信息。

如果论文被认为有进一步修改和完善的潜力，编辑部可能会建议作者进行修改并重新提交。

如果论文未通过审查，作者可能会收到拒绝通知或要求修改后重新提交的指示。

总之，“Under consideration”状态表示论文正在接受编辑部的审查，作者需要耐心等待审查结果。

在这个过程中，作者应该保持与编辑部的沟通，并遵循编辑部的指导进行必要的修改和改进。

最完全的投稿经历

最完全的投稿经历（从投稿到接受），希望对您有用(转载)一直感激在小木虫获得的帮助和资源。

也思忖着为小木虫做点什么。

值第三篇SCI论文将要出版之际，特将其中一篇从投稿到接受的所有细节列出与各位分享。

投的杂志是Polymer （SCI Journal, 2006 IF=2.77），但我觉得所有的杂志都是大同小异。

希望对投稿的虫子有一定的参考价值。

2007/3/4 Submit the manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Cover letter//Dear Editor,Here enclosed is a completely new manuscript entitled "xxxxx", which we wish to be considered. None of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.In this manusc ript, …………. We believe that this new paper may be also of particular interest to the readers of your journal.Correspondence about the paper should be directed to xx at the following address, phone and fax number, and e-mail address:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXThanks very much for your attention to our paper.Sincerely yours,The authors******************************************2007/3/4 received a letter ?from jpol@//Submission Confirmation for Polymer//PolymerTitle:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear, Your submission entitled "xxxxx" has been received by Polymer. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Your manuscript will be given a reference number once an Editor has been assigned. Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/3/5 received a letter ?from jpol@//A manuscript number has been assigned to xxxxx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" has been assigned the following manuscript number: xx. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Caroline JohnsonJournal ManagerPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/3/5 received a letter ?from jpol@//Editor handles xx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han. You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/4/19 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission to Polymer: xx//Ref.: Ms. No.PolymerDear,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript substantially. If you send back your revised manuscript along with replies to reviewers, we will re-consider your paper. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. When you revise your manuscript, please attach a "Response to Reviewers" which sets out in detail how you have responded to the referees' comments.I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. In an attempt to speed up publication times, revised manuscripts must be returned with 3 months. Otherwise, they will be treated as new submissions.When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them.To submit a revision, please go to /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Choose "Author Login" and the menu "Submissions Needing Revision".Yours sincerelyCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerReviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:Reviewer #2:2007/5/17 submit a revised manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Responds to the reviews//Dear editor,Thank you very much for your attention. The other two reviewers are also acknowledged from the bottom of our hearts for the careful reviews on our manuscript (xx). The affirmation on our work has greatly encouraged us. According to those helpful comments, we make a careful revision on the original manuscript. All revisions are explained as follows: Major comments from referee 1 were abstracted as a following list:1.2.…………………….Answer to referee 1 comments:1.2.……………………….Major comments from referee 2 were abstracted as a following list:1.2.…………………….Answer to referee 2 comments:1.2.……………………….Besides the revision described above, all the references you (the editor) kindly recommended are included in our revised manuscript which are labeled as xxx. These references actually provide good reference …...Sincerely yours,The author2007/5/17 received a letter from jpol@//Your PDF has been built and requires approval?//PolymerDear,The PDF for your submission, "xxxxx", is ready for viewing. Please login to the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author to view and approve the PDF of your submission. url: /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Your submission must be approved in order to complete the submission process and send the manuscript to the Polymer editorial office. Please view the submission before approving it, to be certain that it is free of any errors. You will also need to confirm that you have read and agree with the Elsevier Ethics in Publishing statement before you can submit your article.Thank you for your time and patience.Kind regards,Editorial OfficePolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/5/17 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Submission Confirmation for xx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your revised manuscript has been received for reconsideration for publication in Polymer. You may check the status of your manuscript by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author at /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/5/17 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Editor handles xxx//PolymerRef:Title:Authors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han. You maycheck on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/6/15 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission to Polymer: xx//Ref.:PolymerDear,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising some minor changes to your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I expect that the paper will be accepted. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. When you revise your manuscript, please attach a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them. To submit a revision, go to /jpol/ and log in as an Author.Your username is:Your password is:You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerelyCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerReviewers' comments: Reviewer #2:2007/6/30 submit the revised manuscript through the online EES (/jpol/)//Respond to the reviewers?//Dear editor,Thank you for the continuous attention to our manuscript (POLYMER-07-486R1). We also greatly appreciate the reviewer #2 for the careful review and valuable comments.………………….We wish we had corrected all errors. Thank you and the reviewer again for all efforts spent on our manuscript. Sincerely yours,The authors2007/6/30 received a letter from jpol@//Your PDF has been built and requires approval?//PolymerDear,The PDF for your submission, "xxxxx", is ready for viewing.Please login to the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author to view and approve the PDF of your submission .url: /jpol/Your username is:Your password is:Your submission must be approved in order to complete the submission process and send the manuscript to the Polymer editorial office. Please view the submission before approving it, to be certain that it is free of any errors. You will also need to confirm that you have read and agree with the Elsevier Ethics in Publishing statement before you can submit your article.Thank you for your time and patience.Kind regards,Editorial OfficePolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/6/30 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Submission Confirmation for xx //PolymerRef: xxR2Title: xxxxxAuthors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your revised manuscript has been received for reconsideration for publication in Polymer.You may check the status of your manuscript by logging onto the Elsevier Editorial System as an Author at/jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.Kind regards,Polymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/7/2 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Editor handles xxR2?//PolymerRef: xxR2Title: xxxxxAuthors:Article Type: Regular ArticleDear,Your submission entitled "xxxxx" will be handled by All Papers from China: All Subject Areas Charles Han.You may check on the progress of your paper by logging on to the Elsevier Editorial System as an author. The URL is /jpol/.Your username is:Your password is:Thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Kind regards,Charles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymer******************************************For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Author Support at authorsupport@ 2007/7/6 received a letter from [email]c.c.han@[/email]//Your Submission *R2?//Ref.: Ms. No. *R2xxxxxPolymerDear,I am pleased to tell you that your work has now been accepted for publication in Polymer.Comments from the Editor and Reviewers can be found below.Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.With kind regardsCharles HanAll Papers from China: All Subject AreasPolymerEditor/Reviewers' comments:。

投稿状态under consideration

投稿状态underconsideration投稿状态underconsideration意味着您的文章已经成功提交至期刊或杂志，进入了审稿流程。

在此阶段，您的文章将由专业的编辑和审稿人评估，以确定是否符合期刊的发表要求，以及是否具有学术价值和创新性。

一、审稿流程在underconsideration阶段，您的文章将经过以下几个关键步骤：1.提交审核：您的文章将由期刊或杂志的编辑手动分配给合适的审稿人。

审稿人的选择通常基于学科领域、专业背景和经验等因素。

2.初步评估：审稿人将对文章进行初步评估，包括评估文章的主题、研究方法、结果和讨论等内容是否符合期刊的发表要求。

3.审稿意见：如果文章符合发表要求，审稿人将提出修改建议。

这时，编辑会与作者联系，询问是否接受修改建议。

如果作者接受修改建议，文章将返回给审稿人进行再次评估。

如果作者拒绝修改建议，编辑可能会决定不接受这篇文章。

4.最终审核：在经过多次修改和评估后，编辑将做出最终决定：接受、拒绝或要求更多修改。

在此阶段，作者将被告知具体的发表决定。

二、注意事项在此阶段，您需要关注以下事项：1.耐心等待：underconsideration阶段可能需要一段时间，请耐心等待审稿进程。

2.与编辑和审稿人保持沟通：如果您对审稿人的建议有疑问或需要更多信息，请及时与编辑和审稿人联系。

这将有助于加快审稿进程。

3.遵守期刊要求：请确保您的文章符合期刊的发表要求和规范，如格式、语言、引用格式等。

4.准备可能的修改：如果您需要修改文章以符合期刊要求或获得更好的评估结果，请尽快准备并进行修改。

这将有助于加快审稿进程。

总之，投稿状态underconsideration标志着您的文章已经进入了学术出版的重要阶段。

在此阶段，您需要耐心等待审稿进程，遵守期刊要求，并与编辑和审稿人保持沟通。

一旦您的文章被接受发表，它将为学术界和广大读者带来新的见解和知识。

在此过程中，您的耐心、努力和创造力都将得到回报。

manuscript under consideration 和 decision started

"Manuscript under consideration" 和"decision started" 是学术出版流程中的两个不同阶段，它们分别表示一篇手稿当前所处的状态。

1.Manuscript under consideration:1.当一篇手稿（manuscript）提交给学术期刊或会议后，经过初步审查（initial screening）认为它可能符合出版要求，编辑会将该手稿分配给专家进行详细的同行评审（peer review）。

在这个阶段，手稿的状态通常会被标记为“under consideration”。

2.这意味着手稿正在接受同行评审的过程中，评审专家会评估手稿的原创性、质量、研究方法和结论等，并可能提出修改建议或要求作者提供更多数据或实验验证。

3.在此期间，作者可能会与编辑和评审专家进行多次沟通，以回应评审意见并改进手稿。

2.Decision started:1.当同行评审过程完成后，编辑会根据评审专家的建议开始做出关于手稿是否接受、修改后接受、还是拒绝的决定。

这个决策过程开始时，手稿的状态会被标记为“decision started”。

2.这个阶段通常涉及编辑对评审意见的汇总和分析，以及基于这些意见和期刊的出版标准来做出决策。

3.一旦决策完成，编辑会通知作者关于手稿的命运，并可能提供进一步的指导，如如何进行修改或准备出版。

在整个出版流程中，手稿的状态可能会经历多个阶段，包括提交（submission）、初步审查（initial review）、同行评审（peer review）、决策（decision）、修改（revision）、最终决定（final decision）、到最终出版（publication）。

每个阶段都可能需要作者和编辑之间的沟通和协作，以确保手稿的质量和学术价值得到充分的展现和认可。

Elsevier期刊投稿状态以及回复信件模板

1.第一次投稿Cover letter：主要任务是介绍文章主要创新以及声明没有一稿多投Dear Editors:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ……(简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××2) Name B E-mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信：询问稿件处理到声明步骤Dear Prof. ×××:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor”has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments.Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards!Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）:On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red inthe paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。

SCI论文投稿信写作模板

SCI论文投稿信写作模板当选定了拟投期刊和论文的最后一稿准备好后,就可向SCI期刊投稿了。

但是有很多小伙伴不知道投稿信怎么写，那今天小编就奉上几个写作模板，希望能够帮助到大家。

投稿信范例1Dear Editor，Enclosed for your consideration is an original research articl，entitled“××××”1. All authors of this research paper have direct Ly participated in the planning execution, or analysis of this study2. All authors of this paper have read and approved the final version submitted.3. The contents of this manu have not been copyrighted or published previously.4. The contents of this manuscri pt are not nowe under consideration for publication elsewhere.5. The contents of this manu will not be copyrighted, submitted,or published elsewhere while acce ptance by the Journal is under consideration.6. There are no directly related manus or abstracts,published or unplished, by any authors of this paper.We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal because the study reports that...Correspondence and phone calls about the paper should be directed to at the following address, phone and fax number, and e-mail adress:(your name and address here)Thanks very much for your attention to our paper.Sincerely yours(your name here)投稿信范例-2Dear Dr.××××,I would like to submit the attached manu,“××××”for considerati on for possible publication in the Research Articles section of SCIMy two nominees for associate editor are Dr. Smith and Dr.××××,Dr.Smith is well versed in the topic of the paper while Dr.×××× has used a methodology in his own research that is related to the methodology in the paper being submitted.Regarding the option of nominating up tofour reviewers, my nominees are:Name-1, Email address-1Name-2, Email address-2Name-3, Email address-3Name-4, Email address-4The nominees for associate editor and reviewers have no conf lict of in terest with any of the authors of the paper being submitted.This paper(or closely related research) has not been published or accepted for publication. It is not under consideration at another journal.No other papers using the same data set have been published. ( Note: If other papers using the data set have been published, please indicate differences between the submitted paper and the other published papers.)Sincerelyyour name and address hereOK，大家是不是觉得还是有点无从下手的感觉？小编也是非常理解大家的，毕竟，英语对于咱们中国人来说，可不是短期内就能up up up的。

Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1 A Constra

Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming1 A Constraint Handling Rules Implementationfor Known-Arc-Consistency in Interactive Constraint Satisfaction ProblemsMARCO ALBERTI,MARCO GAVANELLI,EVELINA LAMMADipartimento di Ingegneria,Universit`a degli Studi di FerraraPAOLA MELLO,MICHELA MILANODipartimento di Elettronica,Informatica e Sistemistica,Universit`a degli Studi di Bolognasubmitted31July2002;revised26September2003AbstractIn classical CLP(FD)systems,domains of variables are completely known at the beginning of the constraint propagation process.However,in systems interacting with an external environment,acquiring the whole domains of variables before the beginning of constraint propagation may cause waste of computation time,or even obsolescence of the acquired data at the time of use.For such cases,the Interactive Constraint Satisfaction Problem(ICSP)model has been proposed as an extension of the CSP model,to make it possible to start constraint propa-gation even when domains are not fully known,performing acquisition of domain elements only when necessary and without the need to restart propagation after every acquisition.In this paper,we present a two sorted CLP language to express and solve ICSPs,and its implementation in the Constraint Handling Rules(CHR)language,a declarative language particularly suitable for high level implementation of constraint solvers.1IntroductionConstraint Logic Programming on Finite Domains(CLP(FD))represents one of the most successful implementations of declarative languages.By means of constraints, the user can give the speciﬁcations of a combinatorial problem and possiblyﬁnd a solution,exploiting eﬃcient propagation algorithms.CLP(FD)languages have been successfully used for solving a variety of industrial and academic problems.However, in some constraint problems,where domain elements have to be computed,it may not be opportune to perform the acquisition of the whole domains of variables before the beginning of the constraint propagation process.For instance,in conﬁguration problems(Mailharro1998;Ilog1999)domain elements represent components,that have to be synthesized before being used.The set of components is not known beforehand,and sometimes even the size of the set cannot be estimated.Often a minimization of the set of components is required,thus the constraint solver produces a new component only when it is strictly necessary.In systems that need to interact with an external environment,domain elements can be produced by an acquisition system that retrieves information about the outer2M.Alberti et al.world.An example is given by Faltings and Macho-Gonzalez(2003)where Inter-net applications are faced and obviously not all the information can be computed before starting the constraint satisfaction process.As another example,consider a visual search system(Cucchiara et al.1999b)where domain elements are basic visual features(like segments,points,or surface patches)extracted from the im-age.In a classical CLP(FD)computation,all domain values must be known when deﬁning the variables,so all the possible visual features would have to be extracted before starting the visual search process,even if only a small subset of them will be actually used.The synthesis of visual features is usually very time consuming,be-cause information encoded with signals must be converted in symbolic form.Thus, the extraction of domain elements that will not be used can result in a signiﬁcant waste of computation time.Also,in systems that interact with an evolving environ-ment,full acquisition of all the domain elements is not wise(Barruﬃet al.1999).In fact,if all the possible information is acquired beforehand,some of the information might be obsolete at the end of the acquisition.For all these reasons,a new model called Interactive Constraint Satisfaction Prob-lem(ICSP)has been proposed(Cucchiara et al.1999a)as an extension of the widely used Constraint Satisfaction Problem(CSP)model.In an ICSP,domains consist of a known part,containing the available elements,plus a variable that semantically represents a set of values that could be added to the domain in the future.In a sense, in an ICSP,domains can be considered as streams of information from one system to the constraint solver.Constraint propagation can be performed even with do-mains not completely known,and domain values can be requested to an acquisition system during constraint propagation;in other words,constraint propagation and value acquisition interact(thus Interactive in the name of the framework)and are interleaved,whereas in classical CSP frameworks domain elements are completely known before the beginning of the propagation.In this way,the acquisition system can possibly extract only elements consistent with the imposed constraints,thus fo-cusing the attention only on signiﬁcant data.Various propagation algorithms have been proposed(Cucchiara et al.2001)for exploiting the available information and acquiring new domain values only when strictly necessary.Reducing the number of extracted elements can provide a notable speedup(Cucchiara et al.1999a).In(Gavanelli et al.2003)we describe a corresponding CLP language.Our lan-guage is two sorted.Theﬁrst sort is the classical sort on Finite Domains(FD). The second sort,called S-Channels,is based on a structure similar to streams,and represents domains of the FD variables.From the constraints on the FD sort,the system can start propagation before having full knowledge of domain elements. Each element will be inserted on demand in the domain,without having to restart constraint propagation from scratch.Moreover,constraints can be imposed on do-mains,thus helping the user deﬁning S-Channels declaratively.In this paper,we provide an implementation of the language in Constraint Han-dling Rules(CHR).CHR(Fr¨u hwirth1998)is a declarative language for deﬁning new constraint solvers at a very high level.CHR allows for rapid prototyping,and has proven eﬀective in various real life applications.The purpose of this paper is to show how Constraint Handling Rules can be eﬀectively used to implementA CHR Implementation for KAC in ICSPs3 the solver for our two sorted ICSP-based language.In previous works,the prop-agation algorithms have been proposed and separately implemented,but we did not describe the full implementation of the solver(Cucchiara et al.)for ICSP problems.The algorithms were implemented using non fully declarative constructs (e.g.,metaterms with destructive assignment).The encoding in CHR is higher-level, and more declarative.The implementation consists of a solver for the S-Channels sort,a solver for the FD sort and an interface between them designed to exploit the advantages of the ICSP model in systems interacting with external acquisition modules.Of course,other aspects in the model of a problem,besides domain elements, could be unknown:in a CSP there could be unknown variables or unknown con-straints.Typically,in all Constraint Programming systems new constraints can be easily added,while removal of constraints is more complex(Dechter and Dechter 1988).The addition of variables has been taken into account by Dynamic CSP models(Mittal and Falkenhainer1990).Our work is focussed on unknown domain elements,and proposes an interaction based on the acquisition,from an external system,of domain elements.The rest of the paper is organized as follows.The declarative and operational semantics of the language are described in Sections2and3,respectively.In Section 4some examples are shown.In Section5we describe the architecture of the language from an implementation viewpoint,and in Section6we show how it is implemented in the CHR language.Related works,conclusions and proposals for future work follow.2Syntax and Declarative SemanticsThe language described in this paper is based on a two sorted CLP,where theﬁrst sort is the classical sort on Finite Domains(FD)and the second is the sort on S-Channels.S-Channels are used both as domains for FD variables and as commu-nication channels with an external source providing elements.Weﬁrst deﬁne constraints and operations on the two sorts,then we link the two sorts.In the following,we comply to the conventions in(Jaﬀar et al.1998).In particular, every constraint domain C(where C can be FD,S-Channels or FD+S-Channels) contains:the constraint domain signatureΣC,the class of constraints L C(a set of ﬁrst-orderΣ-formulas),the domain of computation D C(aΣ-structure that is the intended interpretation of constraints),the constraint theory T C(aΣ-theory that describes the logical semantics of the constraints),and the solver solv C.2.1The FD sortTheﬁrst sort shares the same declarative semantics of the classical FD sort.Thus, the usual constraints in CLP(FD)are considered(arithmetic,relational constraints plus user-deﬁned constraints).We suppose that the symbols<,≤,+,−,×,...be-long toΣF D and are interpreted as usual.4M.Alberti et al.2.2The S-Channels sortThe second sort provides domains for variables in theﬁrst sort.Domains are thus considered asﬁrst-class objects,and they can be declaratively deﬁned by means of constraints.In a sense,they can be considered as streams,but they are in-trinsically non-ordered,and do not contain repeated elements.We call the sort S-Channels(Set-Channels).Declaratively,S-Channels are sets;thus uniﬁcation and constraints should consider S-Channels terms modulo the set theory(Dovier et al. 1996):{A|{A|B}}={A|B},{A|{B|C}}={B|{A|C}},which states that sets do not contain repeated elements and order is not important.CLP(SET)(Dovier et al. 2000)and CLP(S-Channels)diﬀer in the operational semantics and in the language expressiveness.Non-ground elements are forbidden in an S-Channel;this restriction allows for more eﬃcient propagation algorithms.In CLP(S-Channels),the constraint domain signature,ΣS−Channel,contains the following constraints:•s-member(E,S)⇔E∈S•union(A,B,C)⇔A∪B=C•intersection(A,B,C)⇔A∩B=C•diﬀerence(A,B,C)⇔A\B=C•inclusion(A,B)⇔A⊆B2.3Linking the two sortsIntuitively,we want to bind CLP(FD)with CLP(S-Channels)with the intended semantics that S-Channels provide domains for FD variables.Given the two CLP languages L F D and L S−Channels,we deﬁne the CLP language L as the union of the two languages,with a further constraint,::,deﬁned as follows:•the signatureΣ=ΣF D∪ΣS−Channel∪{::};•the intended interpretation D keeps the original mappings in the FD andS-Channel sorts;i.e.,D|ΣF D =D F D and D|ΣS−Channel=D S−Channel.The declarative semantics of the constraint isX::S↔X∈SThe symbol::is overloaded,and represents the usual CLP(FD)unary constraint linking a domain variable X to its domain when S is ground,and the binary con-straint of set membership when S is a channel.From the S-Channels viewpoint,it is just a set membership operator;its power comes from its operational semantics.3Operational SemanticsThe operational semantics of the language is deﬁned by the propagation of con-straints in the two sorts,and the propagation of constraint::,linking them.Deﬁning the operational semantics in this way will let us exploit the power of Constraint Handling Rules as a language for high level deﬁnition of constraintA CHR Implementation for KAC in ICSPs5 solvers:in fact,in some cases the rules written to actually implement the solvers result in a mere rephrasing to CHR syntax of those used to specify their semantics.3.1S-ChannelsThe semantics of the S-Channels sort is deﬁned in terms of state of S-Channels, events over S-Channels and primitives used to modify the state.The state of an S-Channel is deﬁned by its known part,i.e.the set of the elements which are known to belong to the S-Channel(as opposed to its unknown part, representing the elements which have not yet been acquired for the S-Channel), and its open-closed condition,i.e.,an S-Channel is open if new elements can be inserted into it,closed otherwise.A convenient notation to express the state of an S-Channel is one based on Prolog-like lists.An S-Channel is represented by a structure S deﬁned as:S::={}S::={T|S}S::=Vwhere T is a ground term and V is a variable.The known part of the S-Channel is the set of all the ground elements in the list representing it;an S-Channel is closed if its continuation(tail)is ground,open otherwise.For example,S-Channel{1,2,3,4|T}is open,and its known part is the set{1,2,3,4};S-Channel{1,2,3,4}has the same known part,but it is closed. We have primitives to modify and check the state of a S-Channel.Two primitives are used to modify the state,namely:•ensure member(Element,Channel):ensures that Element is a member of the known part of Channel,possibly adding it if it is not already member,or failing if it is not already member and the S-Channel is closed;•close(Channel):closes Channel;after execution of this primitive,no new ele-ments can be added to the S-Channel;A Prolog-style deﬁnition of the primitives follows:ensure member(Element,):-var(Element),!,raise exception.ensure member(Element,Channel):-var(Channel),!,Channel={Element|},inserted(Element,Channel).ensure member(Element,{Element|}):-!.ensure member(Element,{|Tail}):-ensure member(Element,Tail).close({}).close({|T}):-close(T).6M.Alberti et al.Moreover,we have primitives to check the state of an S-Channel.•known(Channel,KnownPart):KnownPart is the list of elements in the known part of Channel.•is closed(Channel):checks if the Channel is closed.known(Channel,[]):-var(Channel),!.known({},[]).known({Element|TailS},[Element|TailK]):-known(TailS,TailK).is closed(Channel):-var(Channel),!,fail.is closed({}).is closed({|Tail}):-is closed(Tail).Predicate inserted(Element,Channel)in the second clause of the ensure member primitive is what we call an event:a notiﬁcation of how the status of the computa-tion has been modiﬁed,which may be relevant for the rest of the computation and is to be processed properly.The semantics of an event is deﬁned by rules specify-ing its interactions with the constraints in the store.It is quite apparent that the concept of eventﬁnds a natural representation as a CHR constraint;nevertheless, we prefer,in deﬁning the operational semantics of the language,to keep events and proper S-Channels constraints distinct.In this case,the event is raised to interact with S-Channels constraints in the store and,if necessary,activate the propagation process which,by opportune prim-itives,will update the states of the S-Channels as necessary to ensure constraint satisfaction.The concept of event makes it possible to express the semantics of S-Channels constraints with simple(CHR-like)rules.For example,this rule is all that is needed to deﬁne the fact that,in the inclusion/2constraint,all elements in theﬁrst channel also appear in the second:inclusion(Channel1,Channel2),inserted(Element,Channel1)=⇒ensure member(Element,Channel2)This rule simply states that,if Element has been inserted into Channel1which is known to be included in Channel2,the propagation process must make sure that the element is also present in Channel2.This may imply the insertion of Element into Channel2,with a subsequent inserted(Element,Channel2)event,if Channel2is open and Element is not already a member,or a failure,if Channel2is closed and Element is not already a member.A CHR Implementation for KAC in ICSPs7 Propagation of closure can also be managed with ease.For instance,the following ruleinclusion(Channel1,Channel2),closed(Channel2),known(Channel1,K1),known(Channel2),K2)=⇒permutation(K1,K2)|closed(Channel1)(1)states that if Channel1⊆Channel2,Channel2is closed,and the known elements in Channel1are all the known elements in Channel2,then also Channel1is closed. Predicate closed/1is the event notifying that its S-Channel has been closed.3.2Link of the sortsIn the link of the two sorts,one must face the diﬀerent understanding of the domain concept in the two sorts.In CLP(FD)systems,domains provide ancillary information about variables.Do-mains contain the possible values that a variable can take;if a value is not consistent with the imposed constraints,it is operationally removed from the domain.This helps many systems(Dincbas et al.1988;Puget1994;Aggoun et al.2001;Carlsson et al.1995)obtain high performance;in fact,domain wipe-outs are detected early and many alternatives are eﬃciently pruned.On the other hand,in the S-Channels sort,domains must be manipulated as logical entities:if an element is shown to semantically belong to a domain,it cannot be removed.Suppose that we have constraint{1,2,3}⊆D stating that the elements1,2and 3should belong to the set D,the constraint X::D that links variable X to the domain D,and X=1that states that X should be diﬀerent ual constraint propagation of the constraint X=1would remove element1from the domain D,but this is inconsistent with the constraint{1,2,3}⊆D so the computation would fail.This behavior is not correct(remember that::declaratively means set membership),because the set of constraints{1,2,3}⊆D,X∈D,and X=1is satisﬁable.This problem comes from a misunderstanding on the concept of domain.We need actually to make a distinction between the set of elements that semantically belong to the S-Channel,and the set of values that a variable can take,possibly belonging to a solution.For this reason,the domain of a variable X is represented by two streams:aDeﬁnition Domain D dXthat contains all the values synthesized for the variable,and a stream of Removed Values D rX,that is the set of elements proven to be inconsistent with the imposed constraints.The set of available items for X,alsocalled Current Domain D cX,is given by the relation:D c X=D d X\D r X·(2)It should be noticed that D cX remains open until D dXis closed.D rX,instead,is alwaysopen,so to make it possible to move elements into it from the current domain even if the deﬁnition domain is closed.8M.Alberti et al.Fig.1.FD Constraints asﬁlters on variable domainsWith the imposed constraints,one can declaratively add a newly synthesized value to the deﬁnition domain(imposing the constraint v∈D dX)or remove aninconsistent element from the current domain(w/∈D cX or,equivalently,w∈D rX;see Fig.1).In this way,during search,an inconsistent element will not be tried if itbelongs to D rX and a possible domain wipe-out will be detected when D cXis empty.With this representation,FD propagation can be implemented without aﬀecting the S-Channels sort;in fact,FD propagation only inﬂuences the current domain and the stream of removed values,while propagation on domains only aﬀects the deﬁnition domain.Note that the relation in Eq.2automatically propagates two types of information from the deﬁnition domain to the current domain of a variable.First,whenever a domain element is synthesized,it is considered in the current domain and can be exploited for propagation.Second,if no more values are available to the deﬁnition domain,also the current domain becomes closed.Notice that more than one FD variable can range on the same deﬁnition domain or,equivalently,their deﬁnition domains can be linked by an equality constraint; however,each of them will have its own current domain and set of removed values.The user can write,e.g.,X::D dX ,Y::D dYand D dX=D dY,meaning that the twovariables X and Y semantically range on the same set of elements.Nevertheless,to X a current domain D cX and a set D rXof removed values will be associated,andto Y the two sets D cY and D rY.On the sets the following relationships hold(by Eq.(2)):D cX =D dX\D rXand D cY=D dY\D rY.Notice that,by deﬁnition,the user cannot close the current domain of a vari-able:the user should not access directly the current domain,but only the deﬁnition domain.We believe that this is not a restriction,because if one wants to close inde-A CHR Implementation for KAC in ICSPs9 pendently the current domain of diﬀerent variables(as in the previous example),he can deﬁne two diﬀerent deﬁnition domains(and,possibly,impose some constraintsamong them,e.g.,D dX ⊆D dY).3.2.1Guided AcquisitionIn some applications constraints can be used not only for removing inconsistent values from the current domains,but also for guiding the acquisition.In fact,if the acquisition module that provides values to the solver is able to take some constraints into account,these constraints can be used to acquire only consistent values.This can provide a huge performance improvement,but,as is explained later in this section,it can be exploited only if we do not impose any constraint on the deﬁnition domains.Constraints on FD variables limit the possible combinations of assignments.Op-erationally,they prevent inconsistent elements from entering the current domain. If we want to perform a guided acquisition,FD constraints can also play a second role:provide the acquisition module with the corresponding auxiliary constraints which can be used to acquire only consistent values.Auxiliary constraints avoid inconsistent element to enter in the deﬁnition domain.Deﬁnition3.1A constraint c(X i,X j)deﬁnes two auxiliary constraints c u i(U c i,X j)and c u j(X i,U c j).c u i(U c i,X j)is a subset of the Cartesian product P(D c i)×D c j rep-resenting couples of compatible assignments of the sub-domain U c i⊆D c i and the variable X j∈D c j.It is satisﬁed by a couple of assignments U c i=S i⊆D c i,X j=v j iﬀ∀v i∈S i,(v i,v j)∈c(X i,X j).For example,an FD constraint c(X i,X j)removes inconsistent elements from the domain(i.e.,puts the elements in the Removed Values stream)and can impose the auxiliary constraints c u j(X i,U c j)and c u i(U c i,X j).A constraint like c u j(X i,U c j)is a relation between an object and a set of objects,linking every domain element with a subset of the second domain.For instance,a constraint X>5,where X::D and D={1,10|U},produces the new domain{10|U }with the imposed constraint ∀v∈U ,v>5.An auxiliary constraint can only be imposed by an FD constraint(it is not accessible at the language level).Unluckily,it is not always possible,in general,to ensure that the auxiliary con-straints will inﬂuence the synthesized elements and completely avoid the ineﬃcient generate-and-test generation of new domain elements.However,in various real-life cases it is possible to select a subset of auxiliary constraints that can be exploited by the generator of domain elements.For example,the acquisition system might be able to handle only linear con-straints.In this case,if the constraint solver asks for an element v such that v>3 and v2<20the generator could take into account only theﬁrst,and reply v=5. The auxiliary constraint v2<20will then redirect the value5to the set of removed values and ask for another element.In other words,some of the constraints can be10M.Alberti et al.used only for checking and others also for generating new elements.Other examples will be given in Section4.However,auxiliary constraints can only be used if the user is interested in con-sistent current domains,but not in complete deﬁnition domains:in fact,auxiliary constraints can prevent elements that logically belong to deﬁnition domains from being acquired.3.3Operational Semantics:Finite DomainsSince we want to avoid useless value acquisition,we use a constraint propagation based on the available knowledge,when domains are still partially speciﬁed.For this reason,we propose an extension,for the partially known case,of the concept of consistency,called known consistency.In this paper,we provide only the deﬁ-nition of node-consistency and arc-consistency;the extension to higher degrees of consistency is straightforward.Deﬁnition3.2A unary constraint c(X i)is known node-consistent iﬀ∀v i∈K c i,v i∈c(X i),where K c i is the known part of the domain of X i.Deﬁnition3.3A binary constraint c(X i,X j)is known arc-consistent iﬀ∀v i∈K c i,∃v j∈K c j s·t·(v i,v j)∈c(X i,X j),where K c i and K c j are the known parts of the domains of X i and X j,respectively.Deﬁnition3.4A constraint network is known arc-consistent(KAC)iﬀall unary constraints are known node-consistent and all binary constraints are known arc-consistent. Known Arc-consistency,like Arc-Consistency(AC)(Mackworth1977)is a prop-erty of a constraint graph.Besides the property,various algorithms have been pro-posed to achieve arc-consistency(Waltz1975)(Mackworth1977)(Mohr and Hen-derson1986)(Hentenryck et al.1992)(Bessi´e re1994)(Bessi´e re et al.1999),i.e., to obtain a problem equivalent to the original one,in which the property holds. All these algorithmsﬁlter the domains(Waltz1975)and provide a sub-domain, i.e.,a restricted set of domains for the CSP variables.More precisely,they pro-vide the maximal arc-consistent sub-domain,i.e.,the biggest sub-domain which is arc-consistent.In the same way,there are many algorithms that translate a problem,P,into an equivalent problem P ,with diﬀerent domains,such that the new problem P is KAC.The following proposition explains the outcome of an algorithm achieving KAC:A CHR Implementation for KAC in ICSPs11Lemma1If a network of constraints is KAC,then the subset of known elements is an arc-consistent sub-domain.Proposition1Every algorithm achieving KAC(i.e.any algorithm that computes an equivalent problem that is KAC)and that ensures at least a known element in each vari-able domain is able to detect inconsistency in the same instances as an algorithm achieving AC.Proofs can be found in(Gavanelli et al.2003).In other words,if there exists an arc-consistent sub-domain,then there exists a maximal arc-consistent sub-domain;so if KAC does not detect inconsistency,AC will not detect inconsistency either.KAC is equivalent to AC when domains are completely known.The advantage in using KAC is that the check for known arc-consistency can be performed lazily, without full knowledge of all the elements in every domain.Operationally,achieving KAC has some similarities with achieving Lazy Arc Consistency(LAC)(Schiex et al.1996).LAC is an algorithm thatﬁnds an arc-consistent sub-domain(not necessarily a maximal one)and tries to avoid the check for consistency of all the elements in every domain.KAC looks for an arc-consistent sub-domain as well,but it is aimed at avoiding unnecessary information retrieval, rather than unnecessary constraint checks.In order to achieve AC,algorithms need to remove elements that are proven to be inconsistent.In order to achieve KAC,algorithms need to remove elements and to promote elements,i.e.,to move ideally some elements from the unknown part to the known part.Elements can then be removed(i.e.,prevented from entering the current domain)if they are shown to be inconsistent.An algorithm for achieving KAC is shown in(Gavanelli et al.2003).It is worth noting that the addition,besides the deletion,of elements to the cur-rent domain might seem non monotonic.However,the current domain is kept open as long as new acquisitions are possible(i.e.,until the deﬁnition domain is closed), the unknown part representing the set of future acquisitions.Thus,declaratively, when a new element enters the known part of the current domain,it is not properly added:it is just made explicit.A similar behavior is also achieved by Mailharro (1998)with the use of a Wildcard representing values entering the domain. Clearly,the repeated acquisition of the same element would result in a loop. This problem can be avoided either by passing the set of already acquired values (the known part of the deﬁnition domain)as inconsistent to the acquisition module (if this supports auxiliary constraints,see Sect.3.2.1)or by having an acquisition module that does not provide twice the same element to the same S-Channel(as hypothesized,for instance,by Mailharro(1998)).However,in general,if no hy-potheses are made about the behaviour of the acquisition module,then it is not possible to guarantee the absence of loops.。

editors decision started之后又变回under consideration

在学术期刊的投稿流程中，当一篇文章的状态从"Editor's Decision Started"变回"Under Consideration"时，这种情况可能有以下几个原因：1.审稿人反馈延迟或无法提供意见：编辑在开始做出最终决定后，可能会发现由于某些原因（如审稿人未能及时提交评审报告，或者审稿人临时退出评审），无法依据现有的审稿意见得出结论。

在这种情况下，编辑可能需要重新寻找审稿人，将稿件状态变回“Under Consideration”，等待新的审稿意见。

2.作者对初步决策的回复引发了进一步审查：如果编辑已经做出了初步决定（比如要求大修、小修或拒稿），但作者根据编辑和审稿人的建议进行了大幅度修改并提交了复审请求，编辑可能认为有必要再次进行同行评审以评估修改后的版本，此时文章状态会恢复到"Under Consideratio n"。

3.内部程序调整或特殊情况：有时编辑部可能因为内部流程的调整，或者发现了与稿件相关的一些特殊情况（例如涉及伦理问题、版权问题等），需要进一步审查，因此暂时将稿件状态改回到“Under Considerati on”。

4.主编或编委会介入：在某些复杂的情况下，主编或编委会成员可能需要介入决策过程，这时原本的编辑决定可能暂停，需要更多讨论或重新审视，导致文章状态回归到“Under Consideration”。

总之，从"Editor's Decision Started"变回"Under Consideration"通常意味着文章的审核流程出现了需要额外步骤的情况，这并不一定意味着负面结果，而是为了确保最终的决策是基于全面且公正的评价过程。

作者在此期间应保持耐心，并按要求配合编辑部的工作。

nature review之后under consideration -回复

nature review之后under consideration -回复所以，什么是“Under Consideration”？当接收到提交的学术论文或研究报告后，期刊或出版社的编辑部会进行初步评估，这通常包括对稿件进行检查、查重、同行评议等程序。

在这个初步评估的阶段，编辑部可能会将论文分类为“Under Consideration”，也就是仍在考虑中的意思。

这意味着论文已成功通过初步的筛选程序，但还没有最终确定是否会被正式接受或发表。

在这一阶段，论文仍然需要经过更加严格的审查、修改和编辑，以确保其质量和准确性。

因此，作者通常需要对编辑提出的修改建议进行修改，并重新提交修改后的版本。

此外，论文被列为“Under Consideration”还意味着该论文可能正在与其他同行评审者或编辑进行进一步的讨论和审查，以确保其在学术界中的独创性和重要性。

这个阶段的持续时间通常取决于期刊或出版社的工作效率和审稿程序的繁忙程度。

在“Under Consideration”阶段，审稿人和编辑可能会对论文进行更深入的评估和审查，并提出更具体和严格的建议和批评。

这可能涉及对数据分析的验证、实验的重复性、结果的解释合理性等方面的检查。

经过这一阶段的审查和修改后，论文可能会被接受并正式发表，或者被拒绝。

在“Under Consideration”过程中，作者通常可以与编辑或审稿人进行交流，就任何问题、疑虑或建议进行讨论，以提高论文的质量和准确性。

作者应该充分利用这个机会，倾听和采纳专家的意见和建议，以改进自己的研究成果。

然而，需要注意的是，尽管论文处于“Under Consideration”阶段，但并不意味着它已经通过了最终的审稿程序。

在这个阶段，作者应耐心等待，同时积极配合编辑和审稿人的修改建议，并尽快提交修改后的版本。

最后，不同期刊或出版社的“Under Consideration”阶段的持续时间和程序也可能会有所不同。

投稿信 Cover Letter 和Highlights 模板

模板1Dear Prof. XXXXX,Here within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be published on “(Journal name)”. The further information about the paper is in the following:The Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXThe Authors: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXThe authors claim that none of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.I am the corresponding author and my address and other information is as follows,Address: Department of XXXXXXXXX,Tsinghua University,Beijing, 10084,E-mail:Tel: 86-Fax: 86-Thank you very much for consideration!Sincerely Yours,Dr. XXXXXXXXXXX模板2Dear XX (Editor):Here is our paper submitted to "(XX Journal)".The Title: XXXXThe Authors: XXX XXX and XXXIn this paper, we ...The authors claim that none of the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.The corresponding author is Dr. XXX and his address and other information is as following:Address: Department of XXX, XX University, ...,Tel: +86-xxx-xxxxxxxxFax: +86-xxx-xxxxxxxxThank you very much for consideration!Sincerely Yours,Dr. xxx模板3Dear Mr. **We believe the paper may be of particular interest to the readers of your journal as it ........1. The work described has not been submitted elsewhere for publication, in whole or in part, and all the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.2. I have read and have abided by the statement of ethical standards for manuscripts submitted to Neuroscience.kind regards.Your sincerely,通讯作者Dear Prof. Gil:This is a manuscript by**and **entitled “.......”. It is submitted to be considered for publication as a “...” in your journal. This paper is new. Neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or has been accepted elsewhere. It is not being submitted to any other journal.Correspondence should be addressed to **at the following address, phone and fax number, and email address:...Thanks very much for your attention to our paper.Sincerely yours,**投稿信模版四（实例）Case 1Dear Editor,We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled "GDNF Acutely Modulates Neuronal Excitability and A-type Potassium Channels in Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons", which we wish to be considered for publication in Nature Neuroscience.GDNF has long been thought to be a potent neurotrophic factor for the survival of midbrain dopaminergic neurons, which are degenerated in Parkinson’s disease. In this paper, we report an unexpected, acute effect of GDNF on A-type potassium channels, leading to a potentiation of neuronal excitability, in the dopaminergic neurons in culture as well as in adult brain slices. Further, we show that GDNF regulates the K+ channels through a mechanism that involves activation of MAP kinase. Thus, this study has revealed, for the first time, an acute modulation of ion channels by GDNF. Our findings challenge the classic view of GDNF as a long-term survival factor for midbrain dopaminergic neurons, and suggest that the normal function of GDNF is to regulate neuronal excitability, and consequently dopamine release. These results may also have implications in the treatment of Parki nson’s disease.Due to a direct competition and conflict of interest, we request that Drs. XXX of Harvard Univ., and YY of Yale Univ. not be considered as reviewers. With thanks for your consideration, I amSincerely yours,case2Dear Editor,We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled"Ca2+-binding protein frequenin mediates GDNF-induced potentiation of Ca2+ channels and transmitter release", which we wish to be considered for publication in Neuron.We believe that two aspects of this manuscript will make it interesting to general readers of Neuron. First, we report that GDNF has a long-term regulatory effect on neurotransmitter release at the neuromuscular synapses. This provides the first physiological evidence for a role of this new family of neurotrophic factors in functional synaptic transmission. Second, we show that the GDNF effect is mediated by enhancing the expression of the Ca2+-binding protein frequenin. Further, GDNF and frequenin facilitate synaptic transmission by enhancing Ca2+ channel activity, leading to an enhancement of Ca2+ influx. Thus, this study has identified, for the first time, a molecular target that mediates the long-term, synaptic action of a neurotrophic factor. Our findings may also have general implications in the cell biology of neurotransmitter release.HighlightsHighlights are a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings and provide readers with a quick textual overview of the article. These three to five bullet points describethe essence of the research . results or conclusions) and highlight what is distinctive aboutit.Highlights will be displayed in online search result lists, the contents list and in the online article, but will not (yet) appear in the article PDF file or print. Authorinstructions: Highlights should be submitted as a separate file in EES by selecting "Highlights"from the drop-down list when uploading files. Please adhere to the specifications below. Specifications:Include 3 to 5 highlights.There should be a maximum of 85 characters, including spaces, per highlight.Only the core results of the paper should be covered.ExamplesJournal of Health Economics, Volume 29, Issue 4, July 2010, 524-535HighlightsWe model two hospitals which have regulated prices and compete on quality.We examine changes in the level of information about hospital quality.Increasing information will increase quality if hospital costs are similar.Increasing information will decrease quality if hospital costs are very different.Welfare effects depend on ex-ante or ex-post assumptions about quality information.Applied Catalysis A, General, Volumes 411-412, 16 January 2012, 7-14HighlightsHighly c-axis oriented ZnO nanowires were grown on glass using aqueous solutions.The growth temperature does not exceed 95 °C in any step of the synthesis.The photocatalytic and wetting properties were studied upon UV irradiation.ZnO nanowires show superior photocatalytic activity.We report a reversible photo-induced transition from hydrophobic to super-hydrophilic.Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA), Bioenergetics, Volume 1807, Issue 10, October 2011, 1364-1369HighlightsA conformational two-state mechanism for proton pumping complex I is proposed.The mechanism relies on stabilization changes of anionic ubiquinone intermediates.Electron-transfer and protonation should be strictly controlled during turnover.The mechanism explains the full reversibility of complex I.Learning and Instruction, Volume 21, Issue 6, December 2011, 746-756HighlightsFading of a script alone does not foster domain-general strategy knowledge.Performance of the strategy declines during the fading of a script.Monitoring by a peer keeps performance of the strategy up during script fading.Performance of a strategy after fading fosters domain-general strategy knowledge.Fading and monitoring by a peer combined foster domain-general strategy knowledge.。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

Under consideration for publication in Formal Aspects of Computing
But What If I Don't Want To Wait Forever?
1 2
Colin Fidge1 and Carron Shankland2
Software Veri cation Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Correspondence and o print requests to : Carron Shankland, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom. E-mail: ces@
2
Colin Fidge and Carron Shankland
parameters of the amendment to the IEEE standard Ins95] to determine an upper bound on the elapsed time, based on number of attempts.
2. Related Work
There have already been many correctness proofs for various aspects of the FireWire protocol at various levels of abstraction. Romijn Rom01] and Stoelinga Sto02] summarise several recent papers in the eld. The studies closest to ours are those that focus on the protocol's probabilistic or timing properties. Tools-based approaches aim to automatically explore the state space de ned by the protocol. For instance, automata and the tools HyTech and Prism KNS02] were used to establish an absolute deadline for successful termination of the protocol. Similarly, automata and the model checker LPMC BSdRT01] were used to nd bounds for the timing parameters within which the protocol can be successful. The Upaal2k tool was used to explore multiple instances of the protocol using di erent timing values in order to identify the timing constraints necessary for correct operation SS01]. In a quite di erent approach, simulation based on a stochastic process algebra D'A99] was used to produce a probability density function, answering the question \on average, how many attempts to solve contention are required?" However, all approaches based on state space exploration risk being limited by the size of the state machine which can be explored. For example, deadlines initially up to only 6 s were analysable in the rst of these studies KNS02], although larger deadlines of up to 1ms were analysed by applying abstraction techniques. Given the practical limitations of exploring large state spaces, we instead prefer to concentrate on proof theoretic techniques. Some such proofs have also already been undertaken for the FireWire protocol. For instance, Romijn models the protocol using timed I/O automata in order to prove not only that the protocol can elect a leader correctly, but also that it will signal an error if the network contains a cycle and no leader can be elected Rom01]. Earlier, a series of probabilistic timed I/O automata were used by Stoelinga and Vaandrager to prove the protocol's correctness SV99]. Typically, these models represent the communications behaviour of the protocol in considerable detail. For instance, Romijn models all the internal and external actions of each node. The resulting proofs are therefore quite complex and many are reduced to proof `sketches' in the published paper Rom01]. By contrast, our goal in this paper is to devise a highly abstract model which de nes nothing but the probabilistic properties of the protocol. Based on the results of the previous studies cited above, we take it for granted that the nodes behave and interact correctly, and that the overall protocol will eventually succeed, and instead concentrate on the probabilities of the overall algorithm terminating after a certain number of attempts in a worst case timinon
Traditional computing formalisms allow us to reason about the functional properties of algorithms. Here we show how the probabilistic Guarded Command Language additionally allows us to determine the likelihood of an algorithm successfully terminating within a certain number of iterations, where the computation's progress relies on a random choice. We focus on a speci c aspect of the IEEE 1394 `FireWire' standard Ins95, Ins00], namely contention resolution in the network leader election protocol of the Tree Identify Phase. The leader election protocol requires a set of asynchronously communicating nodes to elect a unique leader. In certain cases two nodes may simultaneously nominate one another as leader. The contention resolution algorithm solves this by having each node make a choice based on a randomly generated value. However, this choice may result in re-entering the contentious state, so it is not immediately obvious that contention will always be resolved. It is already well known that the root contention resolution algorithm is correct. A number of previous studies have veri ed that the protocol will terminate successfully eventually SV99]. In practice, however, a bounded solution would be more useful: for how many attempts will we have to wait before a leader is elected, or, given that the user has no real feedback as to the number of attempts, for how long will we have to wait? Here we formally derive a relationship between the number of attempts to resolve contention and the probability of a successful outcome in a particular worst-case scenario. Moreover, we use the timing