Goals and Tasks. Does the submission state the goals of the research,
including the criteria by which readers should evaluate the results?
Does it specify clearly the performance and learning tasks under
study? How could the authors improve the paper along these lines?
System Description. If the paper describes a system, does it specify
the knowledge representation, performance element, and learning
algorithm in enough detail to let readers replicate them? How might
the authors describe their framework more effectively?
Claims and Evidence. Do the authors make explicit claims or draw clear
conclusions, and do they present reasonable evidence to support their
position? Do their results reveal the underlying reasons or causes for
phenomena? How might they strengthen their claims, evidence, or reasoning?
Context and Limits. Does the submission motivate the research, place
it in the context of previous work, and explain its contribution to the
literature? Do the authors note their approach's limitations and suggest
directions for future work? How could they do better on these dimensions?
Communication. Does the paper communicate well to the reader? Does the
manuscript have a rational organization, with understandable sentences,
necessary transitions, and correct grammar? Can you suggest ways to
improve its readability?
Other Comments. Do you have any other suggestions or comments for the
authors that would help them improve their paper or their research?
Recommendation. Should the paper be accepted in its current form,
accepted on condition that the authors make the minor presentation
improvements suggested above, marginally accepted or rejected entirely? In all
cases please provide a sentence or two explaning your recommendation (see
below for more complete guidelines for each category).
Accept [ ] Conditional Accept [ ] Marginal [ ] Reject [ ]