that are addressed below:
* Most of the theoretical work presented here are built upon prior work, it is not clear what is the novelty and research contribution of the paper.
* The figures are small and almost unreadable
* It doesn't clearly state how equation 5, follows from equation 4
* It is not clear how \theta^{t+1/2} come into the picture. Explain
* S^{*} and S^{~} are very important parameters in the paper, yet they were not properly defined. In line 163 it is claimed that S^{~} is defined in Assumption 1, but one can see the definition is not proper, it is rather cyclic.
* Since the comparison metric here is wall-clock time, it is imperative that the implementation of the algorithms be the same. It is not clear that it is guaranteed. Also, the size of the experimental data is quite small.
* If we look into the run-times of DCPN for sim_1k, sim_5k, and sim_10k and compare with DC+ACD, we see that DCPN is performing better, which is good. But the trend line tells us a different story; between 1k and 10k data the DCPN run-time is about 8x while the competitor grows by only 2x. From this trend it looks like the proposed algorithm will perform inferior to the competitor when the data size is larger e.g., 100K.
* Typo in line 106
* The figures are small and almost unreadable * It doesn't clearly state how equation 5, follows from equation 4 * It is not clear how \theta^{t+1/2} come into the picture. Explain * S^{*} and S^{~} are very important parameters in the paper, yet they were not properly defined. In line 163 it is claimed that S^{~} is defined in Assumption 1, but one can see the definition is not proper, it is rather cyclic.