Evaluation

Overall evaluation (*). Please provide a detailed review, including a justification for your scores. Both the score and the review text are required.
3: strong accept
2: accept
1: weak accept
0: borderline paper
-1: weak reject
-2: reject
-3: strong reject

Reviewer's confidence (*). How familiar are you with the topic of this submission and related work? How strong would you rate your confidence in the field?
5: (expert)
4: (high)
3: (medium)
2: (low)
1: (none)

Appropriateness (*). Is the topic of the paper appropriate for conference X?
5: certainly
4: probably
3: unsure
2: probably not
1: certainly not

Empirical soundness / correctness (*). Is the approach apt and are the claims convincingly supported? Are data dealt with in a correct/adequate way? Is there an appropriate evaluation that supports what has been done?
5: excellent
4: good
3: fair
2: poor
1: very poor

Meaningful comparison (*). How comprehensively is the work related to previous work? Do the references given reflect the state of the art?
5: excellent
4: good
3: fair
2: poor
1: very poor

Originality (*). To what extent does the work stand out from previous work? How creative is the presented account? Are there novel aspects in the methodology?
5: excellent
4: good
3: fair
2: poor
1: very poor

Clarity (*). How clear and comprehensive is the presentation? How easy is it to follow the argumentation? How well is the text formulated?
5: excellent
4: good
3: fair
2: poor
1: very poor

Confidential remarks for the program committee. If you wish to add any remarks intended only for PC members please write them below. These remarks will only be seen by the PC members having access to reviews for this submission. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is optional.