# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T14:06:13
**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: 3.50/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 3.5/6 | The generated review identifies some valid high-level issues (e.g., the rule of thumb for effective coding gain, the lack of verification for non-mod-2 partitions), but it also includes several fabricated or incorrect critiques (e.g., claiming the shape gain formula has a variable collision when the paper uses 'n' consistently, or claiming the constellation expansion factor is only asymptotic when it is exact for the fundamental volume definition used). It misses several of the more nuanced mathematical issues caught by the reference review. |
| specificity | 2.5/6 | While the review includes quotes, several of them are fabricated or misrepresent the text. For example, in Comment 12, the quote for H_16 in Table I is fabricated (the paper actually has G^8, not G^4). In Comment 21, the quote showing two D8/RE8 rows in Table III is fabricated (Table III has D8/RD4, D8/2D4, D8/2RD4, D8/E8, D8/RE8, D8/2E8, but not two identical D8/RE8 rows). In Comment 22, the quote for Z4/RD4 order 8 is fabricated (Table III lists Z4/RD4 with order 8, but the math in the feedback is flawed because V(RD4) = 4, not 2). |
| depth | 3.0/6 | The review attempts deep technical engagement but frequently errs in its mathematical reasoning. For instance, in Comment 22, it incorrectly claims V(RD4) = 2 (it is 4, so the order 8 is correct). In Comment 12, it hallucinates a typo in the paper's table. In Comment 19, it misunderstands the paper's notation (the paper explicitly says '2^{-e} d^2_min' for Ungerboeck codes, where e is the number of states, which is a specific formula Ungerboeck used, though the paper's general formula is 2^{-rho} d^2_min). The depth is compromised by these technical hallucinations. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review follows the required standard review format perfectly, including the Overall Feedback section with titled issues and the Detailed Comments section with numbered entries, Quotes, 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

- Fabricates quotes from the paper's tables (e.g., Table I and Table III) to create fake issues.
- Contains flawed mathematical reasoning (e.g., incorrectly calculating the volume of RD4).
