-------------------------------------------------------------------------- CMSC 477/677 MAS REPORT REVIEW FORM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUTHOR'S NAME: 477 / 677 (circle one) TITLE OF REPORT: REVIEWER'S NAME: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY. Please summarize the area of this report in one sentence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- OVERALL. Give an overall rating of the report (mark with an X), and a one- to three-sentence summary of why you gave it that rating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (E) Excellent [ ] (VG) Very Good [ ] (G) Good [ ] (F) Fair [ ] (P) Poor [ ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTIVATION. Does the report state the key problems in the field, and why these problems are important and interesting to researchers? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THOROUGHNESS. 677: Does the report (appear to) do a thorough job at surveying work in the problem area (both directly and indirectly related)? 477: Does the report (appear to) do a thorough job of summarizing the important ideas and results from the selected paper, and important directly related work (e.g., papers on which this paper builds)? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORGANIZATION. Is the report well organized, to help the reader identify broad themes, concepts, research directions, and key papers/authors? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION. Are the descriptions of existing techniques given at an appropriate level of detail? Can a reader not familiar with the area follow the explanations? Are the contributions of the work clearly stated? (Note: 477 papers should be fairly detailed in their descriptions; 677 papers can give somewhat more high-level descriptions, since they are covering more ground.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS. Does the report clearly articulate the key strengths and weaknesses of existing methods? Are directions for future research discussed? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENTATION. Is the report well written? Is terminology and jargon clearly explained for a non-expert reader? Has the author provided sufficient background on any necessary formalisms or methods? --------------------------------------------------------------------------