# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T15:33:39
**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: 5.75/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 6.0/6 | The generated review provides exhaustive coverage of the paper's theoretical framework, mathematical derivations, and tabulated results. It identifies numerous critical issues and typographical errors that the reference review completely missed. |
| specificity | 6.0/6 | The review is exceptionally specific, quoting exact mathematical expressions and table entries, and providing precise, actionable corrections for each identified error. |
| depth | 6.0/6 | The depth of analysis is outstanding. The reviewer re-derives formulas, checks partition orders, verifies subcode conditions, and critically examines the assumptions behind the effective coding gain and shape gain metrics. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review perfectly adheres to the requested format, including an Overall Feedback section with titled issues and a Detailed Comments section with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback blocks. |

## Strengths

- Identifies numerous subtle mathematical and typographical errors in the paper's formulas and tables that were overlooked by the reference review.
- Provides deep, rigorous re-derivations to prove why certain statements or table entries in the paper are incorrect.
- Critically engages with the paper's high-level assumptions, such as the omission of shape gain and the empirical rule of thumb for effective coding gain.

## Weaknesses

- Some detailed comments overlap slightly with the high-level overall feedback, leading to minor repetition.
- The sheer volume of detailed comments (23) makes the review quite long, though the quality justifies the length.
