# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T14:36:57
**Reference**: /Users/davidvandijcke/University of Michigan Dropbox/David Van Dijcke/coarse/data/refine_examples/coset_codes/reference_review.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 5.38/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 5.5/6 | The generated review identifies several critical issues missed by the reference, such as the conflation of asymptotic and finite-SNR regimes in the coding gain metric, the unverified regularity assumptions for higher-depth partitions, and the incomplete decomposability proofs for depth >= 3 lattices. It provides a highly comprehensive critique of the paper's theoretical framework. |
| specificity | 5.0/6 | The generated review uses precise, accurate quotes from the paper and points to specific tables, equations, and sections to ground its critiques. The actionable feedback is clear and directly addresses the quoted text. |
| depth | 6.0/6 | The depth of analysis is exceptional, substantially exceeding the reference. It deeply engages with the mathematical structure of the paper, identifying subtle flaws in the dual lattice definitions, the subcode constraint derivations, and the distance-invariance assumptions for non-linear mod-4 partitions. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review perfectly follows the requested format, including the header block, Overall Feedback with titled issues, and Detailed Comments with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Identifies deep mathematical inconsistencies in the paper's treatment of dual lattices and decomposability that the reference missed.
- Provides a highly rigorous critique of the paper's performance metrics, particularly the conflation of asymptotic coding gain and finite-SNR effective gain.
- Maintains excellent specificity with accurate quotes and targeted, actionable feedback for complex theoretical issues.

## Weaknesses

- Some of the detailed comments overlap slightly with the overall feedback points, leading to minor repetition.
- The critique of the 'folk theorem' is raised in both the overall feedback and detailed comments, which could have been consolidated.
