CPSC 522 - Spring 2013
                          Review Form

Please email the completed form to David (poole@cs.ubc.ca) by 
noon Monday 15 April 2013.

This review form is based on the AAAI review form. Please give
constructive feedback for the author. Please expand on your evaluation
(i.e., give more than one word answers). The author will see all of
this form. Write a constructive review to help the author write a good
paper (write the sort of review you would like to receive).

Author:
Title:

SUMMARY: 
What is the main result of the paper? (2 sentence limit) 



PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Does the paper clearly state the problem
addressed by the work?  Does the paper make a convincing case for the
significance of the problem?  Is the problem addressed directly
relevant to the course?



APPROACH: Is it clear what was actually done?  Does the paper present
the approach to solve the targeted problem in sufficient detail?  Is
the design or implementation of any system described in terms of the
key ideas of the approach?  Are any new ideas described in sufficient
detail?



VALIDATION: Does the paper show convincing evidence to support the
approach?  Do the authors present solid arguments to support their
ideas?  Are the claims justified by the evidence provided?



CURRENT STATUS: Does the paper clearly state how much work has been
done to date, i.e., what has been designed, what has been implemented,
and what has been evaluated?



CONTRIBUTION: Does the paper clearly describe how the work
makes a substantial contribution and demonstrates improvement
over the state of the art?  Do the authors place the research
presented in the context of previous work and cite relevant work
appropriately?



NOVELTY: Are the results original? Are the results well demonstrated
or are they just preliminary? Is it an incremental step or or are the
ideas innovative and opening new research directions?  Does the paper
break new ground in bringing in techniques from outside AI or
incorporating AI techniques into a novel area?  Does the paper present
promising new ideas for a well-known problem?



READABILITY: Is the paper well written and easy to understand? Is the
paper well-organized and easy to follow?



Detailed comments and suggestions to improve the paper:




YOUR RECOMMENDATION:

If you were grading this for a graduate level course,
what mark would you give it (out of 20)?

What is your confidence in your evaluation?