# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-13T15:50:41
**Reference**: data/refine_examples/coset_codes/reference_review.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 3.12/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 2.5/6 | The generated review's Overall Feedback raises sweeping, overly critical points (e.g., claiming the fundamental volume definition lacks a measure-theoretic foundation, or that the paper ignores shaping gain when the paper explicitly discusses it and chooses to focus on fundamental gain). The detailed comments focus heavily on nitpicks, notation, and minor phrasing issues rather than the core technical content, missing the substantive issues identified in the reference review. |
| specificity | 3.0/6 | While the generated review includes quotes, many of the issues raised are either incorrect or misinterpret the text. For example, Comment 1 claims the formula for fundamental coding gain is incorrect, but the paper's formula $\gamma(C) = 2^{-\rho(C)} d_{min}^2(C)$ is correct as defined in the text. Comment 2 misunderstands the Ungerboeck code example. |
| depth | 2.0/6 | The technical depth is poor. The review attempts to engage with the math but frequently makes incorrect assertions (e.g., Comment 1 on the coding gain formula, Comment 2 on the minimum distance of the Ungerboeck code). It fails to grasp the paper's actual mathematical framework, substituting superficial or erroneous corrections. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review follows the required format perfectly, including the header, Overall Feedback, and Detailed Comments with Quote and Feedback sections. |

## Strengths

- Follows the requested formatting structure perfectly.
- Includes verbatim quotes for all detailed comments.

## Weaknesses

- Makes several mathematically incorrect claims (e.g., regarding the fundamental coding gain formula and the Ungerboeck code distance).
- The Overall Feedback is overly hostile and misrepresents the paper's stated scope and assumptions (e.g., regarding shaping gain).
- Focuses heavily on trivial phrasing issues rather than substantive technical evaluation.
