Description

Briefly describe the paper and give your assessment of the scope and magnitude of it’s contribution.

Clarity of Exposition

Are the exposition and presentation clear? How could they be improved? Please be tolerant of papers that do not conform to the usual paper template.

Quality of References

Are the references adequate? List any additional references that are needed.

Reproducibility

Could the work be reproduced from the information in the paper? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed adequately? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?

Scored Review Questions

Please enter your recommendation, basing your rating on the paper as it was submitted.

Recommendation

  • Strong reject (I would argue strongly against this paper)
  • Reject (I recommend rejection)
  • Borderline reject (I am not sure, but leaning negative)
  • Borderline accept (I am not sure, but leaning positive)
  • Accept (I recommend acceptance, possibly despite minor concerns)
  • Strong accept (I would argue strongly for this paper);

Please enter your final recommendation for the paper, considering the authors’ rebuttal and the reviewer discussion. Please mark “Table” if you believe that the reviewer discussion did not reach consensus, and more input / discussion is required for this submission.

  • Reject
  • Table
  • Accept
  • Accept – top 10% of papers

Explanation of Rating

Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the submission, contributions, and the potential impact of the paper. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough. Be fair. Be courteous. Provide evidence and references for your statements. Above all, be constructive.

If the paper is a resubmission with reviewer continuity, please also give your assessment of how well the authors took into account comments from reviewers in the previous review cycle, and improved their work. Note that the reviewing system gives you access to the former reviews and that the authors were instructed to upload a cover letter outlining the changes to their work as supplementary material.

Your evaluation will be forwarded to the authors during the rebuttal period. Please be judicious in asking questions to be answered during rebuttal – authors should not be expected to produce new results or conduct additional experiments during the rebuttal period.

Private Comments

You may enter private comments for the papers committee here. These comments will not be sent to the paper author(s). Please do not mention any names or any other papers that are currently in review. You may use this field to comment on your reviewer expertise and confidence in evaluation.

Confirmation of Review: You should confirm that your review has been successfully received by the server in at least one of three ways: (1) check the ’email’ box and have a copy of your review emailed to you, (2) make sure you see a confirmation page (and not an error page) upon submitting your review, and/or (3) note that the ‘review’ link from which you obtained this review page changes to an ‘update’ link upon refreshing the page.

There are four, and only four, known problems that would prevent your review from being received: (a) a network problem between you and the server when you submit, (b) session time out before you submit, (c) errors in your submitted review form, and/or (d) forgetting to click the ‘submit’ button.

Review Form