Name of Reviewer ------------------ Key Contribution ------------------ Summarize the paper's main contribution(s). Address yourself to both the class and to the authors, both of whom should be able to agree with your summary. Novelty -------- Does this paper describe novel work? If you deem the paper to lack novelty please cite explicitly the published prior work which supports your claim. Citations should be sufficient to locate the paper and page unambiguously. Do not cite entire textbooks without a page reference. Reference to prior work ----------------------- Please cite explicitly any prior work which the paper should cite. Clarity ------- Does it set out the motivation for the work, relationship to previous work, details of the theory and methods, experimental results and conclusions as well as can be expected in the limited space available? Can the paper be read and understood by a competent graduate student? Are terms defined before they are used? Is appropriate citation made for techniques used? Technical Correctness --------------------- You should be able to follow each derivation in most papers. If there are certain steps which make overly large leaps, be specific here about which ones you had to skip. Experimental Validation ----------------------- For experimental papers, how convinced are you that the main parameters of the algorithms under test have been exercised? Does the test set exercise the failure modes of the algorithm? For theoretical papers, have worked examples been used to sanity-check theorems? Speak about both positive and negative aspects of the paper's evaluation. Overall Evaluation ------------------ Questions and Issues for Discussion ----------------------------------- What questions and issues are raised by this paper? What issues do you think this paper does not address well? How can the work in this paper be extended?