# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T15:08:34
**Reference**: /Users/davidvandijcke/University of Michigan Dropbox/David Van Dijcke/coarse/data/refine_examples/coset_codes/reference_review_stanford.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 5.50/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 5.5/6 | The generated review identifies several important issues in the paper, including unverified assumptions about the time-zero lattice, the completeness of the eight-class taxonomy, and inconsistencies in the application of the effective coding gain rule of thumb. It covers both high-level conceptual gaps and specific mathematical/typographical errors, exceeding the reference review in finding concrete issues within the paper. |
| specificity | 5.5/6 | The review provides highly specific, actionable feedback with accurate verbatim quotes from the paper. It points out exact typographical errors (e.g., G^4 instead of G^8, duplicate rows, incorrect matrix determinant) and specific inconsistencies in tables and formulas, offering concrete corrections for each. |
| depth | 6.0/6 | The technical depth is outstanding. The reviewer deeply engages with the paper's mathematical derivations, such as verifying the determinant of the rotation matrix, checking the order-of-partition formula against a concrete example (D4/RD4), recalculating the Viterbi complexity formula, and identifying the unproven lattice closure assumption for the time-zero set. This level of technical scrutiny substantially exceeds the reference review. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review perfectly adheres to the requested format, including the header block, Overall Feedback with titled issues, and Detailed Comments with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Exceptional technical rigor, verifying formulas, matrix properties, and table entries with concrete calculations.
- Identifies critical unstated assumptions in the paper's theoretical framework, such as the lattice closure of the time-zero set and the regularity of partition labelings.
- Provides highly specific and actionable corrections for typographical and mathematical errors.

## Weaknesses

- Some Overall Feedback points overlap significantly with the Detailed Comments, leading to slight redundancy.
- The critique regarding the comparison against capacity bounds, while valid, asks for an analysis that might be slightly outside the paper's intended scope of geometrical classification.
