Paper title:
Reviewer name:

Recommendation regarding publication for the IWLCS (select one):
[ ] Strong accept
[ ] Weak accept
[ ] Weak reject
[ ] Strong reject

Recommendation regarding publication for the post-proceedings (select one):
[ ] Not suitable for publication even with substantial revision
[ ] Revise and resubmit after workshop
[ ] Accept for publication without further reviewing

Rate the overall value of the paper (1=lowest, 10=highest):
My confidence in this rating is     (1=lowest, 10=highest):

1. BRIEFLY SUMMARISE THE PAPER


2. CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF A PROBLEM:  Does the paper have a clearly
stated problem to address? Is the material cohesive, or does the paper
contain only loosely related material?


3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM:  Is the problem addressed important? (1-10 plus comments)


4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORK:  Is the work done on the problem important? (1-10 plus comments)


5. NOVELTY:  How original are the ideas presented? (1-10 plus comments)


6. RELATION TO EARLIER WORK:  Is the difference between this work and
related work clear?  Does the paper adequately review related work on
the subject, both within and without the field of classifier systems? 
Are the sources of ideas, problems, algorithms, and results properly
cited? Is there anything that needs to be added/corrected/subtracted
from the bibliography?


7. ACHIEVEMENT OF STATED OBJECTIVE:  Does the paper clearly establish
its main point (problem, issue, etc.) and stay focused and deliver on
this stated objective?


8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:  Are the conclusions justified? Is
empirical evidence adequate? Is further statistical analysis required? 
Is algorithmic complexity analysis warranted? Have any limitations of
the approach been noted?


9. WRITING QUALITY:  How good is the organization, sentence structure,
mechanics (e.g., figures, tables), spelling, and, above all, the
clarity of this paper? Does the paper develop intuitions? Would adding
(further) examples clarify the paper? Does the paper flow well? Does
it contain enough forward and backward links? Are all necessary
concepts defined? Does the title describe the primary point of the
paper, or is it just a general subject area? Does the abstract state
all necessary information (including hypotheses, results,
conclusions)? Please suggest ways to improve the readability of the
paper.


10. REPLICABILITY:  If the paper describes an experiment, is there
adequate information in the paper to permit its replication? Are
parameter settings specified? Are algorithms well specified?


11. SUGGESTIONS TO AUTHOR FOR IMPROVING THIS PAPER:  Regardless of
whether you recommend acceptance or not, what suggestions would you
make to the author to improve this paper (e.g., minor and major errors
or omissions, unclear points, etc.)?


12. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)


13. COMMENTS FOR THE ORGANISERS ONLY