Authors & Affiliation: [Authors] [Affiliations]
Link : [Paper link]
Comments: [e.g. Published at X / arXiv paper/ in review.]
TLDR: [One or at most two line summary.]
Relevance: [Score between 1 and 5, stating how relevant this paper is to your work. Usually filled in at the end. ]
- Category (General) :
- Category (Specific) :
[Summary of the paper - a few sentences with bullet points. What did they do?]
[What are the issues that the paper addresses? Describe the problem. Why did they write this paper?]
[ Only for work that appears to be highly related from reading abstract/intro/conclusion.]
[How did they approach the problem. What methods did they use? ]
[What assumptions were made and are these assumptions valid?]
[Can be empty]
[Can be empty]
[Theoretical or empirical results (any main tables) ]
[Did the authors mention any limitations to their work? Do you see any limitations of their work?]
[Is there anything that is confusing and could need better explanations or references?]
[What are the authors conclusion? What do they claim about their results.]
[What do you think about the work presented in the article? Did the authors manage to achieve what they set out to achieve?]
[Fine, Good, Great]
[Can you think of ways to improve this paper or ideas for future work?]
[If related to own work.]
- What can we learn from their approach:
- How are we different:
- Cited references to follow up on / related papers:
- Source code/ blog/ twitter thread/ other links:
- Cited references to follow up on / related papers:
- Source code/ blog/ twitter thread/ other links: