# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T14:06:21
**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: 3.12/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 3.0/6 | The generated review identifies some valid high-level issues (e.g., the rule of thumb for effective coding gain), but many of its critiques are based on misreadings of the paper or fabricated issues (e.g., claiming the paper doesn't verify distance invariance, or misunderstanding the dual lattice definitions). It misses the broader context captured by the reference review. |
| specificity | 2.0/6 | While the review includes quotes, many of the detailed comments are factually incorrect or hallucinate errors in the text. For example, Comment 5 claims a typo in 'Λ_N^M' vs 'Λ_M^N', but the paper actually says 'Λ_N^M' vs 'Λ_M^M' (or similar, but the quote in the prompt shows the paper text as 'Λ_N^M has a greater or lesser density... than does Λ_N^M', wait, looking at the paper text: 'Λ_N^M has a greater or lesser density of points per unit volume than does Λ_N^M' - ah, the paper does have a typo, but the review misidentifies the intended correction). Comment 8 claims a typo in the exponents of the partition chain, but the paper text is correct as printed in the original context (it's a chain of 4 partitions). Comment 12 claims a typo in Table I for H16, but the paper text actually says 'φ^2 G^4' which is indeed a typo, but the review's correction is confused. Many comments attack correct statements. |
| depth | 2.5/6 | The review attempts deep technical engagement but frequently errs mathematically. For instance, in Comment 4, it critiques the definition of the rotation operator R, missing that in lattice theory, this specific matrix is standardly called a rotation operator despite including a reflection. The critique of the effective coding gain rule of thumb is valid but repetitive. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review perfectly follows the required standard review format, including the Overall Feedback section with titled issues and the Detailed Comments section with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback. |

## Strengths

- Correctly identifies the paper's reliance on an unproven rule of thumb for effective coding gain.
- Follows the required structural format perfectly.

## Weaknesses

- Many technical critiques are based on misunderstandings of standard lattice theory conventions (e.g., the rotation operator R).
- Repetitive in its Overall Feedback and Detailed Comments, particularly regarding the effective coding gain rule of thumb.
