1. 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. Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved?

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

4. Are all important aspects of the algorithms, systems, and/or experiments described in enough detail to reproduce the results presented in the paper?

5. Does the paper provide an adequate evaluation of the proposed methods? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?

6. Please rate this paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where:

• 1 = Definitely reject. I would protest strongly if it is 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.

Rating:
7. 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

Expertise:
8. Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the submission, contributions, and the potential impacts of the paper. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough. Be fair. Be courteous. Your evaluation will be forwarded to the authors during the rebuttal period.

9. (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.