Assignment 1
------------

Please review this paper critically. One of the main goals of this review is to
help you understand how program committees come to a decision about accepting
or rejecting a paper. The sentences in parenthesis should help you with the
review.

1. Does the paper present new or innovative ideas or material?
   YES/NO:

2. Is the information in the paper factual and accurate?
   YES/NO:
   If no please explain why:

3. Rate the paper on its contributions.
   none=1, important=5:
   What is the major contribution of the paper?

4. Rate how well ideas are presented.
   very difficult to understand = 1, very easy to understand = 5:

5. Rate the overall quality of the writing.
   very poor = 1, excellent = 5:
 
6. Acceptance.
   reject = 1, marginal reject = 2, neutral = 3, marginal accept = 4, accept = 5:
7. Explain in a couple of paragraphs the choices you have made above.
   (Start by making a short but critical summary of the paper so that it is
   clear that you understood the paper and its significance or novelty. Then
   describe what you like or dislike about the paper. Specifically, explain why
   you have made choices in questions 1, 3, 6 above).

8. Specific comments to the authors.
   (Any other thing you want to tell the authors. Example, please spell check
   your paper! you are making a statement without qualifying it in Section 2,
   para 4)

Some tips on wording the review
-------------------------------

1. If you identify a shortcoming in the paper, you should suggest a
solution. ("Experiments would be more convincing than simulation.") This is the
heart of constructive criticism. If you find a problem but can't think of any
suggestion or solution, then you're not being helpful.

2. Your criticism should be directed at the paper, not the author. "The paper
did not cover..." is preferred to "The authors did not cover..."

3. Sometimes you will get a paper that had a good idea but was hopelessly
executed and written. The right thing is to end your review with something to
the effect that you thought it was a good idea, though possibly premature, and
you look forward to reading a future version. If it's a bad idea and badly
written, don't encourage them to rewrite it.

4. You should not indicate who you are.