I agree with Sameer in that some of the details of the paper, including the algorithm, seemed a bit sketchy. I thought the paper did a fairly good job, however, of presenting experimental results. Most of the time I felt I knew fairly well what the experimental set up was and I liked that they gave error bars, particularly since the differences between algorithms was so small. I had a couple of minor complaints with the figures, though. In figure 2c, they change which axis NB+ILQ is on, which was confusing at first. In Table 1, the paper presents a large amount of data. It would be helpful if the paper highlighted or underlined important or significant data.

Dave