Bonjour, Je suis modérateur d'une liste de diffusion du lipn, et j'ai recu le mail de modération ci-dessous. Cependant, l'adresse proposée, http://192.168.90.19/mailman/admindb/lagos2017-org me renvoie une erreur. Pouvez-vous me dire comment procéder ? Bien cordialement, Lionel Pournin -------- Message original -------- Objet: Un envoi sur la liste Lagos2017-org à partir de frederique.bassino@univ-paris13.fr requiert une approbation Date: 03/08/2018 17:06 De: lagos2017-org-owner@lipn.univ-paris13.fr À: lagos2017-org-owner@lipn.univ-paris13.fr En tant qu'administrateur de liste, votre autorisation est nécessaire pour l'envoi du message suivant vers la liste: Liste: Lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr De: frederique.bassino@univ-paris13.fr Objet: Reports completed for 2 papers submitted to DAM Raison: Envoi par un non-abonné sur une liste reservée aux abonnés Quand vous le souhaitez, consulter la page web : http://192.168.90.19/mailman/admindb/lagos2017-org pour approuver ou rejeter la demande. !DSPAM:10437,5b6454a8309389731732298! Return-Path: <frederique.bassino@univ-paris13.fr> Received: from mail.lipn.univ-paris13.fr (lipn.univ-paris13.fr [192.168.90.99]) by lipn-listes (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8C3260063 for <lagos2017-org@lists.lipn.univ-paris13.fr>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from upn.univ-paris13.fr (upn.univ-paris13.fr [194.254.164.7]) by mail.lipn.univ-paris13.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64154261576 for <lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: by upn.univ-paris13.fr (Mail Server, from userid 1003) id 3C4CB28878F; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.univ-paris13.fr (smtp.univ-paris13.fr [192.168.0.72]) by upn.univ-paris13.fr (Mail Server) with ESMTP id 27296288789 for <lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Meursault.local (149.210.74.41-ip-dyn.orange.mg [41.74.210.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated user : hidden) by smtp.univ-paris13.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08E213EA04F for <lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr>; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 17:06:51 +0200 (CEST) To: lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fr=c3=a9d=c3=a9rique_Bassino?= <frederique.bassino@univ-paris13.fr> Subject: Reports completed for 2 papers submitted to DAM Message-ID: <9ac95c21-7008-eb26-4f55-25bf9a125f7d@univ-paris13.fr> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 18:06:43 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: fr Dear all, I hope you are well. Reports of two of the articles I am in charge for the special issue of DAM are already available. They concern 1/ Group Parking Permit Problems Murilo S de Lima,Mário C San Felice, Orlando Lee Both reports recommand major and minor revisions. The main problem is that the paper is not enough carefully and rigourously written. There won't be problem for the final acceptance, but I suggest Major revision at this step. 2/Using multiflow formulations to solve the Steiner tree problem in graphs Laura Bahiense, Arthur Besso, Nelson Maculan Both reports recommand to reject it. I quote at the en d of this mail one of them. I think that the criticisms made about the article are justified and that it is not possible to accept it What do you think about that ? best regards frederique ----- Report The manuscript describes three multi-commodity flow formulations for the Steiner tree problem in graphs and compares the strength of their LP relaxations. Moreover, the authors provides computational experiments to compare one of the LP relaxations to the corresponding MIP formulation by using CPLEX as a black-box solver. Overall, the manuscript is written in an easily accessible way. Furthermore, the mathematical presentation is (mostly) correct. However, while the proof to the first lemma in Section 4 seems to be correct, I do not understand the example in Figure 1 that is supposed to show that formulation LSTP3 is stronger than LSTP2 and LSTP1. Indeed, I doubt that LSTP3 is stronger than LSTP2. Also, it should be noted that all three formulations have already been described in the literature, for instance in "A catalog of Steiner tree formulations" by Goemans and Myung. Finally, the computational experiments do not provide insight not already known from the literature. It has been noted by many authors that the LP relaxation of STP3 (or of equivalent formulations) is often tight. Also, much better practical results can be obtained by using a projection of the formulation on the x variables, which by max-flow/min-cut leads to the so-called "directed cut formulation", and applying a cutting plane approach (see e.g. the PhD thesis of Tobias Polzin). All instances described in the manuscript can be solved by state-of-the-art Steiner tree solvers (e.g. the solver by Polzin and Vahdati Daneshmand, or the solver "SCIP-Jack") in fractions of a second. Overall, I do not think that the manuscript contributes enough to the existing literature to be published in DAM. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: confirm de25cd574dc7f9ff3e961a5d183737d2c0543344 Sender: lagos2017-org-request@lipn.univ-paris13.fr From: lagos2017-org-request@lipn.univ-paris13.fr Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 17:06:53 +0200 Message-ID: <mailman.261.1533308813.883.lagos2017-org@lipn.univ-paris13.fr> Si vous r=E9pondez =E0 ce message, en laissant l'en-t=EAte Objet: intact, Mailman supprimera le message en attente. Proc=E9dez ainsi s'il s'agit d'un spam. Si vous r=E9pondez =E0 ce message en y ajoutant un en-t=EAte Approuv=E9: avec le mot de passe de la liste comme valeur, le message sera autoris=E9 =E0 aller vers la liste. L'en-t=EAte Approuv=E9: peut =E9galement appara=EEtre =E0 la premi=E8re ligne du corps du message de r=E9ponse