NIPS review form

NIPS REVIEW FORM

1) Private comments. State which aspects of the paper you did not review in depth (e.g., you did not check the proofs) and provide confidential information (this box is only visible by the ACs and the program chairs and will NOT be published).

[TEXT BOX]

2) Summary. Provide a brief summary of the paper.

[TEXT BOX]

3) Fatal flaws. Does the paper have a "fatal flaw" making it unfit for publication, regardless of other criteria (may include out of scope, double publication, plagiarism, wrong proofs, flawed experiments)? Use the text box to justify your answer.

* YES

* Not as far as I can see]

[TEXT BOX]

4) Technical quality (whether experimental methods are appropriate, proofs are sound, results are well analyzed):

5-Award level (1/1000 submissions)

4-Oral level (top 3% submissions)

3-Poster level (top 30% submissions)

2-Sub-standard for NIPS

1-Low or very low

5) Novelty/originality (in any aspect of the work, theory, algorithm, applications, experimental):

5-Award level (ground breaking, potentially seminal work)

4-Oral level (significantly novel and impressive)

3-Poster level (some notable novel contributions)

2-Sub-standard for NIPS

1-Low or very low

6) Potential impact or usefulness (could be societal, academic, or practical and should be lasting in time, affecting a large number of people and/or bridge the gap between multiple disciplines):

[5-Award level (huge potential to revolutionize the field)

4-Oral level (many people will pick this up)

3-Poster level (looks promising)

2-Sub-standard for NIPS

1-Low or very low

7) Clarity and presentation (explanations, language and grammar, figures, graphs, tables, proper references):

[5-Award level (flawless, a pleasure to read)

4-Oral level (excellent in every respect)

3-Poster level (good enough)

2-Sub-standard for NIPS

1-Low or very low

8) Qualitative assessment. Provide constructive feedback to the authors; justify and complement your ratings above; this box is of the utmost importance in the decision making process.

[TEXT BOX]

9) Reviewer confidence regarding this review.

3-Expert (read the paper in details, quite certain of my opinion)

2-Confident (read it all; understood it all reasonably well)

1-Less confident (might not have understood significant parts)