1. Description

Briefly describe the paper and its contribution to computer graphics and interactive techniques. Please give your assessment of the scope and magnitude of the paper's contribution.

2. Clarity of Exposition

Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved?

3. Quality of References

Are the references adequate? List any additional references that are needed.

4. Reproducibility

Could the work be reproduced from the information in the paper? Was any code or data submitted with the supplemental materials? If so, does it support the claims in the paper? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed adequately in the paper?

5. Rating

Please rate this paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where:
1 = Definitely reject. I would protest strongly if it's accepted.
2 = Probably reject. I would argue against this paper.
3 = Possibly accept, but only if others champion it.
4 = Probably accept. I would argue for this paper.
5 = Definitely accept. I would protest strongly if it's not accepted.

Please base your rating on the paper as it was submitted.

6. Reviewer Expertise

Please rate your expertise in the subject area of the paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 3, where:
1 = Beginner
2 = Knowledgeable
3 = Expert

7. Explanation of Rating

Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the submission. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough -- your explanation will be of highest importance for any committee discussion of the paper and will be used by the authors to improve their work. Be fair -- the authors spent a lot of effort to prepare their submission, and your evaluation will be forwarded to them during the rebuttal period.

8. Private Comments (optional)

You may enter private comments for the papers committee here. These comments will not be sent to the paper author(s). Please do not mention any other papers that are currently in review, or the names of people associated with these papers.