Thank you for reviewing for ACII 2025! Please read each paper assigned to you carefully and reflect on its key strengths and weaknesses. Keep in mind that ACII is an interdisciplinary community and that there are many different ways for a paper to make a meaningful contribution, such as proposing a novel or improved method, evaluating the performance of common methods, rigorously testing scientific hypotheses, sharing useful resources (e.g., tools or datasets), reviewing/surveying the literature, creating educational materials/tutorials, etc. 

Using text boxes, please write a brief but thoughtful summary of: 

1. The main strengths of the paper,
2. The main weaknesses of the paper, and 
3. Any comments about the paper that aren’t strengths or weaknesses. 

Then complete several rating scales on: 

4. Originality: The contribution of new knowledge/reasoning, methods/modeling, or data/tools to the ACII community. A paper can have high originality even if it uses existing methods or data as long as it contributes new knowledge or makes new arguments. If the paper includes any previously published work, the boundary between published and novel work is clearly explained with appropriate citations.
5. Significance: The strength and relevance of the paper’s contributions to the ACII community. A paper with high significance will be of great interest to others working in the community and will be well-contextualized in reference to previous work. Note that significance is not meant to be a measure of the predicted future impact of the paper.
6. Correctness: The rigor and appropriateness of the paper’s technical, theoretical, and applied aspects. A paper with high correctness should accurately describe all relevant theories, correctly define all theoretical and technical concepts, and make use of best methodological practices (e.g., research design, statistical analysis, algorithm development).
7. Presentation: The clarity, organization, and comprehensiveness of the paper’s writing, tables, figures, and references. A paper with high presentation scores will be easy to read and understand, with each research question and methodological choice being well-motivated. 
8. Overall: The quality of the paper, reflecting a holistic integration of the above elements.

You will also be asked to rate your degree of confidence/expertise in reviewing each paper. Finally, please indicate whether the paper’s Ethical Impact Statement was relevant and acceptable; if the statement is unacceptable, please explain the reason in the final text box.

Please maintain a respectful and collaborative tone in your review and deliver criticism in a constructive manner. Both positive and negative feedback should be clear, direct, and supported by concrete examples. Please visit the author submission guidelines link to review the relevant requirements.