Please complete this review form offline and enter into appropriate fields on the Web form. Give reasons that support your answers rather than simply checking boxes.

1. Overall evaluation

   3 Strong accept
   2 Accept
   1 Weak accept
   0 Borderline
   -1 Weak reject
   -2 Reject
   -3 Strong reject

2. Reviewer's confidence

   5 (expert)
   4 (high)
   3 (medium)
   2 (low)
   1 (none)

3. RELEVANCE: Does the paper address issues related to aspects of human-level intelligence, complex cognition, or similar topics related to cognitive systems?

   3 Related to highly related - a factor in accepting the paper
   2 Marginally related - a factor in rejecting the paper
   1 Not related - sufficient basis for rejecting the paper

4. NOVELTY: Is this work novel? Do the authors present a problem or approach that extends or clarifies the capabilities of cognitive systems, or increase our understanding of their operation, in substantial ways?

   4 Very novel - a strong factor in accepting the paper
   3 Somewhat novel - a factor in accepting the paper
   2 Marginally novel - a factor in rejecting the paper
   1 Not novel - a sufficient basis to reject the paper

5. CLAIMS: Does the paper make clear claims about its contribution to cognitive systems? Such claims can take many forms, but they should be stated unambiguously in accessible language.

   3 Clear claims - a factor in accepting the paper
   2 Vague claims - a factor in rejecting the paper
   1 No claims - a sufficient basis to reject the paper

6. EVIDENCE: Do the authors present convincing evidence that supports their claims? Such evidence can take different forms, but it should lead a reasonable person to conclude the claims are correct.

   4 Very convincing - a strong factor in accepting the paper
   3 Somewhat convincing - a factor in accepting the paper
   2 Not convincing - a factor in rejecting the paper
   1 No evidence - a sufficient basis to reject the paper

7. CLARITY: Does the paper's writing and organization present its ideas to readers effectively? Can moderately informed readers understand the main contributions?">

   4 Very effective - a strong factor in accepting the paper
   3 Somewhat effective - a factor in accepting the paper
   2 Not ineffective - a factor in rejecting the paper
   1 Not effective - a sufficient basis to reject the paper

8. Publication in the journal Advances in Cognitive Systems

   If this paper is accepted for oral presentation at the conference, do you think it should also be invited for publication in the online journal, Advances in Cognitive Systems?

   Invite paper for the journal
   Do not invite
   

9. Review

   Please provide a detailed review, including justification for your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless the program committee chairs decide not to do so.

10. Confidential remarks for the program committee

    If you wish to add any remarks intended only for program committee members, please write them below. These remarks will only be seen by the program committee members having access to reviews for this submission. They will not be sent to the authors.

11. If the review was written by (or with the help from) a subreviewer, add information about the subreviewer (first name, last name and email) below.