**NOTE**: Your reviews do not have to follow this format. But you must
summarize the key points of the paper and your thoughts. Your review also 
must answer the paper-specific questions, if any, listed on the schedule. Be
brief and articulate in your review.

=====================================================

## Review for "Paper Title XXX"

[your name] & [date]

### Motivation & goal
  - What problem is this work addressing? 
  - Why the problem is important?
  - What goals does this work aim to achieve?

### Related work
  - What are the state-of-the-art solutions addressing this problem?
  - Why they are inadequate?

### Idea & insight
  - What is the key idea of this work?
  - What is the insight, if any, behind this idea?
  - Why *might* this idea be better than prior work?

### Solution
  - Roughly speaking, how does the solution work?
  - What are the key techniques and algorithms used in the solution?

### Assumption & limitations
  - What assumptions do the proposed solution make?
  - Are these assumptions reasonable? Are there any assumption that the authors did not describe in the paper? 
  - What limitations does this solution have?

### Effectiveness 
  - What experiments, analyses are conducted to evaluate the solution?
  - Do these results and analyses back up the paper's claims?
  - Are there any missing aspects in the evaluation?

### Comparison 
  - How does this work compare with some other works we have read/discussed?
  - Does it take a radically different approach or draw a surprising conclusion?
  - Or is it more or less in line with the direction in the other works?

### Learning & thoughts
  - Are you convinced that the proposed idea/solution is good?
    - that it will work well in practice?
    - e.g., will you be comfortable using it?
  - If not, what flaws you see in the work that can be improved?
  - What are the new things you learned from this paper?

### Unanswered questions
  - What questions are you left with?
  - Are there any confusing parts of the paper that are not addressed?
  - If you were the authors, is there anything you would do differently?

### Historical papers only
  - What historical context (e.g., hardware trend) was the work in?
  - What things you were taking for granted but now understand how they came to be?
  - Is the paper still relevant for today?
    - If so, in what way?
    - If not, what has changed?

### Conclusion
  - What conclusion do you draw from this work?
  - What are the main take-away messages?
  - Can you relate to the findings/solutions/results from your own experience?
  - How may this work influence the way we build systems in the future?

### Assigned paper questions
* Q: XXX
  - A: