PAPER Paper Title: Authors: REVIEWER First name: Last name: Email address: OVERALL EVALUATION (GRADE) 1: strong accept 2: accept 3: borderline paper 4: reject 5: strong reject REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE 5: (expert) 4: (high) 3: (medium) 2: (low) 1: (none) RELEVANCE TO THE SEMINAR 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor QUALITY OF ABSTRACT 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor LITERATURE REVIEW AND RELATED WORK 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor DESCRIPTION & ORIGINALITY OF THE OWN CONTRIBUTION 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor RESULTS AND PRESENTATION 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor READABILITY, QUALITY OF THE CHOSEN LANGUAGE 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor QUALITY OF THE FIGURES 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor CONFORMANCE TO PROCEDIA TEMPLATE 1: excellent 2: good 3: fair 4: poor 5: very poor CANDIDATE FOR BEST PAPER 3: Don't Know 2: No 1: Yes REVIEW (Mandatory) -- Please provide a detailed review, including justification for your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required unless you have an attachment. CONFIDENTIAL REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE -- These remarks will only be seen by the PC members having access to reviews for this submission. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is optional.