Responsible PC Member:
Actual Reviewer (if different from the PC member above):
Email (if different from the PC member's email above):
(5) strong accept
(4) weak accept
(2) weak reject
(1) strong reject
(5) Very high confidence.
(4) High confidence.
(3) Medium confidence.
(2) Low confidence.
(1) Very low confidence.
Within ASE Scope?
(3) Definitely in scope.
(2) Borderline (to be decided during consensus review and/or PC meeting).
(1) Definitely out of scope.
Optional comments for PC only:
Do you nominate this paper for the Best-Paper-Award?
(You should nominate at most one paper!)
What are the main novel and/or interesting contributions?
Describe the form and quality of the evaluation
and/or argumentation supporting the main claims,
techniques, or other contributions. Does the paper
convince you of its claims?
RELATED WORK (mandatory):
Describe the quality of the discussion of other work in the field.
Describe the quality of the organisation, style,
language, and general readability. Also, do the title
and abstract adequately capture the topic
and contributions of the paper?
OTHER COMMENTS (optional):
Include any specific comments for improvement that were not included above.