CS660 REVIEW FORM
                                      
   Paper Title: 
   
   First Author: 
   
   Referee Name: 
   
   Referee E-mail: 
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
                      CONFIDENTIAL Comments to the PC
                                      
   Rating:
   
   1) Interest of the Subject (not the paper) to the conference:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   2) Confidence in your REVIEW:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   3) Contribution of the paper:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   4) Technical content:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   5) Presentation style:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   Overall Recommendation: (circle one)
   
   Strong Accept * Accept * Weak Accept * Weak Reject * Reject * Strong Reject
   
   Summary: REQUIRED 
   Please provide a three-line summary of your reasons for the above
   recommendation (it will be seen by the entire program committee).
   
   







   
                    Summary comments FOR THE AUTHOR(s):
                                      
   1) Subject matter: (circle one)
   
   Theory * Paper Study * Experiment * Practice
   
   2) Interest of the subject (not the paper) to the conference
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   3) Novelty of the problem:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   4) Originality of the solution:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   5) Expected impact of the results in the paper:
   
   Low ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 High
   
   6) Technically sound: (circle one)
   
   Yes * No * Appears to be
   
   7) Mathematics are essential, complete and correct :
   
   Yes * No * Appears to be * Does not apply
   
   8) Self-contained: (circle one)
   
   Yes * No
   
   9) Adequate reference to prior work: (circle one)
   
   Yes * No
   
   10) English is satisfactory: (circle one)
   
   Yes * No
   

   Written comments for author(s):
   Please give your reasons for acceptance or rejection and suggest
   improvements to the paper. Reviews lacking informative comments will
   be disregarded.  Address 1-3 below explicitly.  Then give further
   comments.  Include this on a separate sheet.
   
   1. Please comment on the original contributions of this paper.
   
   2. Please comment on the significance of the paper. What aspects of
   the paper are likely to be used by other researchers and/or
   practitioners?
   
   3. Please list any technical errors, uncited related work, and/or ways
   in which the technical material could be improved.
   
   4. Please add any additional comments for the authors (e.g., how might
   the paper be further improved beyond 1-3 above?).