%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%
% CS 888
% Template for CS 888 Paper reviews
%
% Originally created by Craig S. Kaplan
% Modified by Toshiya Hachisuka
%
% You can just copy and paste the template to a new blank project in Overleaf.
%
% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

\documentclass[10pt,letterpaper]{article}

\setlength{\parskip}{1ex}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{1ex}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{bibentry}




\newcommand{\Name}{Replace With Your Name}
\newcommand{\Title}{Replace With Paper Title}
\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}
\nobibliography{papers_full}

\noindent
\parbox{4.5in}{\Large\textbf{\Title}}
\hfill
\parbox{1.5in}{\begin{flushright}\textbf{\Name}\end{flushright}}

\begin{center}\line(1,0){400} \\\end{center}

%Fill in your review below


\noindent \textbf{Description:}
%Briefly describe the paper including its topic and the nature of its contribution (e.g., a study, an algorithm, a system, a benchmark...). Give your assessment of the scope, originality, and magnitude of the contribution.

Fill in text here.


\noindent \textbf{Clarity of Exposition:}
%Are the exposition and presentation clear? How could they be improved? Is the length of the paper justified, assuming a recommended length of 8–10 pages plus references?

Fill in text here.


\noindent \textbf{Quality of References:}
%Are all the relevant papers discussed and, conversely, are all the references relevant to the presented work? Indicate any missing or superfluous references. Are all the cited papers accurately discussed in the context of the submission?

Fill in text here.


\noindent \textbf{Technical Correctness and Reproducibility:}
%Is the technical content of the paper correct? Are all important details (e.g., algorithm, study protocol, benchmark metric, training procedure...) discussed adequately? Could the work be reproduced from the information in the paper? Remember that the authors may not be able to release their code/data for various reasons. The papers should not be penalized for the lack of code/data, even though such additional material often has a positive effect. Regardless of whether the code/data is provided, one should be able to recreate it from the paper and you may request additional information if needed.

Fill in text here.


\noindent \textbf{Validation:}
%Does the validation support the claims of the paper? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear? Remember that different types of contributions require different types of validation and that not everything needs to be demonstrated on an end-to-end application or with a user study. Adjust the expectation to the originality of the contribution; while extensive testing is expected for a refinement of a well-established approach, a lighter-weight validation may be acceptable for a groundbreaking idea.

Fill in text here.


\noindent \textbf{Discussion:}
%Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, contributions, and the potential impact of the paper. Remember to adjust your expectation to the type and originality of the contribution. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough. Be fair. Be courteous. Provide evidence and references for your statements. Above all, be open to new ideas and be constructive.

Fill in text here.

\end{document}