Review for Paper: [Paper Title]

Reviewed by: [Your name and UNI]


Part 1
======

Overall Rating:
	__Definitely Accept
	__Probably Accept
	__Borderline
	__Probably Reject
	__Definitely Reject

Explanation:

(Please summarize the paper and describe its key contributions in your
 own words. Please stress both the positive and negative aspects of the
 paper. In particular, please explicitly describe what you feel is the
 best thing about this paper, and what is the worst.)








Part 2
======

Confidence:
	__Very Confident
	__Confident
	__Not Confident

Explanation:

(The default selection is "Confident". Use the other options to stress
 that you are absolutely sure about your conclusions (you are an expert
 in the respective area) or that you feel some doubt. If you have
 serious doubts about your ability to assess the paper, please complete
 the review as best you can, but make a note of this in the private
 comments to the committee below.)





Part 3
======

Novelty
	__Very Original
	__Original
	__Minor Originality
	__Has Been Done Before (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroghly)


Explanation

("Very Original" papers open new directions and often become seminal
papers. "Has Been Done Before" must be accompanied by relevant
references.)




Part 4
======

Importance
	__Of Broad Interest
	__Interesting to a Subarea
	__Interesting Only to a Small number of Attendees
	__Out of our Scope (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroughly)

Explanation

(Papers "Of broad interest" should be of interest to most of the
community, e.g., for the technical quality of the work, or for a
surprising or particularly impressive result. Papers "Interesting to a
Subarea" do not have to address every attendee, but should have an
impact in a certain area. Papers "Interesting Only to a Small Number of
Attendees" should only be considered for publication if they are very
strong in other aspects.)







Part 5
======

Reference to Prior Work
	__Excellent
	__Reference Adequate
	__Some References Missing
	__Misses Key Related Work (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroughly)

Explanation

("Misses Key Related Work" strongly suggests reject. This option should
only be selected if the missing work is well known in the community and
commonly cited. Otherwise you should give the authors the benefit of the
doubt by selecting "Some References Missing" and by providing pointers
to the missing references. The authors can easily add missing
references, and will be expected to do so.)





Part 6
======

Clarity of Presentation
	__Reads Very Well
	__Is Clear Enough
	__Difficult to Read
	__Unreadable (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroughly)

Explanation

(Everything else being equal, clearly written papers are preferred.
However, a paper with strong original results should not be rejected
only because it is not well written. If you were able to evaluate the
preceding criteria and to explain the key contribution, the work is
definitely not "Unreadable". On the other hand, papers that are
completely unintelligible can be rejected for this reason alone.)







Part 7
======

Technical Correctness
	__Definitely Correct
	__Probably Correct, Did not check completely
	__Contains Rectifiable Errors
	__Has Major Problems (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroughly)

Explanation

(The statement that a paper is "Definitely Correct" means that its
conclusions are supported by flawless arguments. Proofs are correct,
formulas are correct, there are no hidden assumptions,
experiments are well designed and properly evaluated. The
important distinction to make in this section is between
errors that can be rectified relatively easily in the final
version, and errors that invalidate the entire approach.)







Part 8
======

Experimental Validation
	__Excellent Validation or N/A-a Theoretical Paper
	__Limited but Convincing
	__Lacking in Some Ways
	__Insufficient Validation (Implies Reject, Justify Thoroughly)

Explanation

(Different papers need different levels of experimental validation.
Please take this into account while completing this section. A
theoretical paper may need no experiments. A paper presenting a new idea
might just need an experiment illustrating that there exists a situation
where the idea applies. A paper presenting a performance evaluation
paper may need extremely thorough experiments and their evaluation. It
is up to you to judge what is appropriate for each paper.)



Part 9
======

Additional Comments: