Paper Reading Checklist:

Here's a list of questions to keep in mind when reading papers:

Context and Problem Statement:

What problems are the authors trying to solve?
Are they important problems? Why or why not?

　

New Idea:

What does this paper contribute to computer graphics? Is the     paper a pioneering new direction? Or is it just a small delta over previous work? 

　

Is the paper stimulating? Is the paper likely to create a new direction for research in computer graphics? Are people going to read the paper and want to extend the ideas? Are they going to read the system paper and say "Yes! I've been wanting to implement something like this, and now I know how." Is the application paper going to make people talk about the great new way to use computer graphics? Will the algorithm be implemented by dozens of people to become a standard widget in the graphics toolkit? Or is the paper a dead end?

What new architecture, algorithm, mechanism, methodology, or perspective are the authors proposing?
(How is the new idea different from all other ideas to solve the same problem?)
Some people also put a lot of emphasis on the usefulness and practicality of the idea.

　

What to Evaluate?

What, according to the authors, need to be evaluated to confirm the worthiness of their new idea?
Runtime? Throughput? Cache miss ratio? Utilization?

　

How to Evaluate?

How did the authors go about conducting the evaluation?
Did they prove theorems?
Did they run simulations?
Did they build a system?
Did they collect traces from existing systems?

　

Was the Evaluation Correct and Adequate?

How was their data collection done?
Do you agree with their analysis of the data?
Do you agree with their conclusions about the data?
Do you have new interpretation of their data?
Can you suggest new ways to evaluate their idea?

　

Assumptions, Drawbacks, Extensions:

Can you think of other aspects of their idea that need to be evaluated?
Can you think of extensions or modifications to their idea to improve it?
How would you evaluate your improvement?
Can you apply their idea or method of evaluation to your own project?
Do the authors make any assumptions that are not valid/realistic?
Can you come up with a more general solution that does not rely on one or more of the assumptions the authors make?

About presentation:

Is the paper well written or well organized? Which part of the paper do you think is the best one that convey authors’ ideas well? What can you learn from this part?

Completeness:

Can an experienced practitioner in the field duplicate the results from the paper and the references?