Soft Skill Seminar review form

For questions marked with an asterisk (*), give a numerical score ranging from 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (excellent) and include a short textual justification of your score.


================================================================================
1) Summary
Briefly summarize the paper (in 2-3 paragraphs) and describe its contribution to the fields of computer graphics, image processing or computer vision. Please give your assessment of the scope and magnitude of the paper's contribution.


================================================================================
2*) Clarity of presentation
Does the paper present its content clearly? How could it be improved?


================================================================================
3*) Technical soundness
Is the paper sound from a technical point of view? Are all methods/decisions scientifically justifiable?


================================================================================
4*) Reproducibility
Are all important aspects of the algorithm/setup/system/experiments described in enough detail to reproduce the results presented in the paper?


================================================================================
5*) Evaluation
Does the paper provide adequate evaluation of the proposed methods, including comparison against state of the art? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?


================================================================================
6*) References
Are the references adequate? Does the paper provide proper source for all outside information?


================================================================================
7*) Concision
Is the contribution and/or its evaluation sufficient to warrant the paper's length?


================================================================================
8) Overall rating
Rate the paper on the following scale:
    1 = Definitely reject. I would protest strongly if it is accepted.
    2 = Probably reject. I would argue against this paper.
    3 = Possibly accept, but only if others champion it.
    4 = Probably accept. I would argue for this paper.
    5 = Definitely accept. I would protest strongly if it's not accepted.
No extra textual description is necessary.


================================================================================
9) Additional comments
Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Suggest improvements, if applicable. Be thorough - your explanation will form the basis of the committee's decision on acceptance and it will be used by the authors to improve their work.


================================================================================
10) Private comments
Here you can provide additional comments. These will not be seen by the authors and will only be made available to the committee.


================================================================================
11*) Suitability for event
Is the paper suitable for the Soft Skill Seminar? Consider how interesting it is, its complexity and understandability. (Yes, this is a request of feedback on the organizers' part ;-) )