Appearance
question:come up with a plot for a new game similar to the iru "Uru: Ages beyond Myst"
answer:In the new game, the player is transported to a mysterious underground city that has long been abandoned by its original inhabitants. The city is filled with intricate puzzles, dangerous traps, and cryptic clues that lead to powerful artifacts hidden throughout its labyrinthine corridors and chambers. As the player navigates the city, they must unravel the mystery of its original purpose and discover the truth behind its seemingly sudden abandonment. Along the way, they encounter strange creatures and other beings that have taken up residence in the city and guard its secrets. As they explore, the player unlocks new areas of the city, each with its own unique challenges and rewards. With each new discovery, they learn more about the city's history and uncover clues that ultimately lead them to a final, epic showdown against a powerful and malevolent force that seeks to control the ancient artifacts hidden within. With its immersive world-building, challenging puzzles, and engaging storyline, this new game will captivate players of all ages and keep them coming back for more.
question:因此，我们使用了一个简单的预测模型。因为我们的重点是评估指标，而不是模型。翻译为英文。
answer:Therefore, we used a simple prediction model. Because our focus is on evaluating metrics, not the model.
question:我们非常感谢第三个审稿人的意见。我们会在后续的修改中做进一步的解释。翻译为英文
answer:We greatly appreciate the comments of the third reviewer. We will provide further explanations in the subsequent revisions.
question:我们觉得AE和审稿人1和2，视乎没有审稿我们这个论文的相关背景知识。 审稿人1认为我们方法是提出一个新的缺陷预测方法。然后一直质疑我们的方法没有跟最新的缺陷预测方法对比。同时，审稿人1不理解代价敏感缺陷预测与普通缺陷预测方法的区别，一直让我们使用普通缺陷预测中的指标来评估代码敏感缺陷预测方法的工作。此外，在上一轮给的意见中，审稿人1一直让我们使用hold-out策略去评估FDC指标。但是FDC其实并不需要hold-out策略，指标的计算过程没有依赖模型的构建。可见审稿人1并没有相关知识的背景。 翻译为英文
answer:We feel that AE and Reviewers 1 and 2 may not have the relevant background knowledge to review our paper. Reviewer 1 believes that our method proposes a new defect prediction method. They continued to question why we did not compare our method with the latest defect prediction methods. At the same time, Reviewer 1 did not understand the difference between cost-sensitive defect prediction and ordinary defect prediction methods, and kept asking us to use metrics from ordinary defect prediction to evaluate the cost-sensitive defect prediction. Additionally, in the last round of comments, Reviewer 1 kept insisting that we use the hold-out strategy to evaluate the FDC metric, but FDC does not require the hold-out strategy as the calculation process does not depend on model construction. It seems that Reviewer 1 lacks the necessary background knowledge in this field.