------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer name:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper title:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Briefly describe the paper and its contribution to computer vision,
graphics, and/or interactive techniques. Please give your assessment
of the scope and magnitude of the paper's contribution.
2) Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved?
3) Are the references adequate? List any references that are needed.
4) Could the work be reproduced by one or more skilled graduate
students? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed
adequately? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?
5) Please rate this paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where:
1 = Reject
2 = Doubtful
3 = Possibly accept
4 = Probably accept
5 = Accept
Please base your rating on the paper as it was submitted, under the
assumption that the work that is not yet completed actually does get
completed before the paper deadline. Your rating should also reflect the
plausibility of that assumption.
6) Please rate your expertise in the subject area of the paper on a
continuous scale from 1 to 3, where: 1=Tyro, 2=Journeyman, 3=Expert.
7) Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of
the submission. Include suggestions for improvement and publication
alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough -- your explanation will be of
highest importance for any committee discussion of the paper and will
be used by the authors to improve their work. Be fair -- the authors
spent a lot of effort to prepare their submission, and your evaluation
will be forwarded to them during the rebuttal period.
8) List here any questions that you want answered by the author(s)
during the rebuttal period.
9) You may enter private comments for the papers committee here.
These comments will not be sent to the paper author(s).