Paper review: <PAPER TITLE>

Reviewer: <REVIEWER NAME>

1. State the problem the paper is trying to solve.
2. State the main contribution of the paper: solving a new problem, proposing a new algorithm, or presenting a new evaluation (analysis). If a new problem, why was the problem important? Is the problem still important today? Will the problem be important tomorrow?  If a new algorithm or new evaluation (analysis), what are the improvements over previous algorithms or evaluations? How do they come up with the new algorithm or evaluation? 
3. Summarize the (at most) 3 key main ideas (each in 1 sentence.) 
4. Critique the main contribution
   • Rate the significance of the paper on a scale of 5 (breakthrough), 4 (significant contribution), 3 (modest contribution), 2 (incremental contribution), 1 (no contribution or negative contribution). Explain your rating in a sentence or two.
   • Rate how convincing the methodology is: how do the authors justify the solution approach or evaluation? Do the authors use arguments, analyses, experiments, simulations, or a combination of them? Do the claims and conclusions follow from the arguments, analyses or experiments? Are the assumptions realistic (at the time of the research)? Are the assumptions still valid today? Are the experiments well designed? Are there different experiments that would be more convincing? Are there other alternatives the authors should have considered? (And, of course, is the paper free of methodological errors.)
   • What is the most important limitation of the approach?
5. What lessons should researchers and builders take away from this work. What (if any) questions does this work leave open?

Note: the purpose of this template is to serve as a starting point, instead of a constraint. Use your judgment and creativity. Some advice through the resource link of the class can be helpful.