# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T14:37:18
**Reference**: /Users/davidvandijcke/University of Michigan Dropbox/David Van Dijcke/coarse/data/refine_examples/coset_codes/review_reviewer3.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 4.12/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 4.5/6 | The generated review covers many important aspects of the paper, including the heuristic nature of the effective coding gain, the 'folk theorem', and the assumptions around distance invariance. However, it misses some of the broader contextual points raised by the reference review, such as the dependency of the complexity metric on specific implementations and the assumption that shaping is peripheral. |
| specificity | 3.0/6 | While the generated review includes many quotes, several of them are fabricated or misquoted from the text. For example, the quote in Comment 9 ('16} + (16,15,2) | φG^{8} + (8,7,2) |') is garbled, and the quote in Comment 18 ('Let \Lambda_k then be the union...') is not an accurate reflection of the text's mathematical notation. Furthermore, some of the detailed comments point to non-existent issues or misinterpret the text. |
| depth | 4.0/6 | The review attempts deep technical engagement, particularly regarding lattice definitions, dual lattices, and distance invariance. However, the depth is undermined by technical inaccuracies and misinterpretations of the paper's mathematical formalism, leading to flawed critiques in several detailed comments. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review adheres well to the requested format, including an Overall Feedback section with titled issues and a Detailed Comments section with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Identifies the heuristic nature of the effective coding gain and its limitations.
- Critiques the 'folk theorem' by pointing out counterexamples within the paper's own tables.
- Follows the requested structural format perfectly.

## Weaknesses

- Includes fabricated or garbled quotes from the original text.
- Makes several incorrect technical assertions and misinterprets the paper's mathematical notation.
- Misses some of the broader, more impactful critiques raised by the reference review.
