Title:
Authors:

-------------------- Numerical Ratings --------------------

Originality (1-5):
Technical Strength (1-5):
Presentation (1-5):
Overall evaluation (1-5):

   Where:
   5:  Outstanding
   4:  Very Good
   3:  Acceptable
   2:  Below average
   1:  Rubbish

Reviewer's Confidence (1-5):

   Where:
   5:  I know what I am talking about.
   4:  It's very unlikely that I'm wrong.
   3:  I'm not an expert but I'm confident.
   2:  I'm fairly certain about the big picture but some details elude me.
   1:  I have some idea of what is going on but quite a few details elude me.
 
-------------------- Detailed comments --------------------

Answer each question below, using one or two paragraphs.

1.  Give a summary of the paper.  Your summary should mention the goal
of the work, the high-level technical approach, and the potential
contribution of the paper.  This will be similar to the paper abstract,
but in your own words.  Your view of the paper could be significantly
different than that of the authors.


2.  What are the strengths of the proposed approach?  What are the
weaknesses?  Back up the "Technical Strength" ranking you gave above.


3.  What parts of the paper didn't you understand?  Be specific but
brief (i.e. mention section numbers, figures, etc.).  We will go over
these in class.  If the paper's presentation was a problem, say why
here.


4.  Drawing from the future work outlined in the paper and/or from
your own experience, briefly describe a research idea you think might
be worth pursuing (whether a direct or indirect extension of the work
presented in the paper).  Justify your proposal.