Referee's report on < paper title > by < authors' names > * RECOMMENDATION < This should be a short overall recommendation. Your choices will be dictated conference program committee chair, but they may be something like the following (choose one and delete the others): > A: This paper should be accepted (advocate/accept). B: I am not opposed to accepting this paper, but will not be an advocate for it. C: I am not opposed rejecting this paper, but will not argue strongly against it. D: This paper should be rejected (detractor). * EXPERTISE < For a conference, you may not be reading a paper in an area in which you are an expert. Often the program committee chair will require you to list your expertise. If there's no explicit section like this, and you feel you are an outsider, then you should say that in your private comments to the program committee. One common set of choices is the following (choose one and delete the others): > X: I am an expert. Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert. Z: I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. * SUMMARY OF THE PAPER < Summarize the paper briefly in your own words. Be sure to describe the problem being solved and the main claims. However, do not put in any evaluation of how good or bad paper is here; that goes below. > * PRIVATE COMMENTS FOR THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE < Usually there is a section for giving private comments to the program committee, things that will not be seen by the author. Usually this should be left blank, however you can use it to describe your relationship with the author, if you have one, or any biases you have. As a general rule, do not put the main recommendations or criticisms here; the process works best if the author can see almost everything. But nothing that would make it completely obvious who you are should be in other sections. > * POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER < This may be brief if the paper is bad. Describe any claims you believe are justified and interesting. Give arguments to support your evaluations; these will help you remember what is good about the paper at the program committee meeting. > * NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER < This may be brief if the paper is good. Describe any claims that you believe are not justified and explain your reasons. If there is some related work missing, you should cite it in enough detail so that it can be checked. (Don't just say "I think there has been some work on this subject before.") > * SPECIFIC COMMENTS < Page n, ... >