Mauro_Braunstein:12Sloppy but interesting. Numerous typos, but nothing that bad.3Skipped many details, but that's OK. Not enough about connections4and open problems and misleading last sentence. No bibliography.5Nothing about how to actually compute fundamental unit.67Grade: 78%89Steven Byrnes:10Nice paper, but one gets the sense he really doesn't have a feeling11at all for how the algorithm actually works. There's not a single12example.13Grade: 93%1415William Fithian:16Very nice.17Not too deep, but a noice choice of topics; follows through and18very clear. Good examples.19Grade: 93%202122Francis Kelly:23Awkward wording in last paragraph. Awkward typesetting. Catchy24intro and good choice of topic. No overview of contents or hint as25to upcoming structure of paper.26* Very frustrating to read.27* Not well researched.28* Ugly weird notation.29* No examples.30GRADE: 80%3132Alison Miller:33Almost nothing there. I don't know what to do.34Grade: 75%?353637Nizameddin Ordulu:38Very nicely systematic.39Clear40Complete41Many typos and confusing notation42No real examples43Grade: 89%4445Corina Patrascu:46Seems like she just copied some stuff.47But she did a great job copying, and I learned something.48Reminds me of the "learn something if you don't know much already."49Annoying lack of examples or connection with real world. Too abstract.50Grade: 89%515253Anatoly Preygel:54Huge paper; proves a very hard theorem completely. wow.55Grade: 99%565758Emily Riehl:5960Very very well written up and clean. Could probably be published.61I found no typos, and the writing is clear. I really like62the clean coherence of the paper overall. But it didn't push63or really have anything super interesting or original in it.6465Grade: 91%666768Gary Sivek:69Good motivation.70On page 1: "the free abelian subgroup" (meaningless!)71Nice applications.72Grade: 90%737475Steven Sivek:76Very nice discussion of Bernoulli polynomials.77Clear.78Nice complexity analyssis and really felt reasonably79deep and original.80Grade: 95%8182Kaloyan Slavov:83Solid and competent. He clearly totally understands it.84Not really that "original" or deep, but very clean.85Grade: 93%8687Gregory Valiant:88Really good examples, though; well researched and honest.89Grade: 95%9091Yan Zhang:92Awkward phrasing. Typos (e.g., "texst" in theorem 2).93I couldn't understand the math on page 1, since the94index form is defined in a very confusing way.95Very good and interesting choice of problem.96What is n in the proof of prop 2? (anything -- but unclear.)97"Sp" --> "So".98In alternative proof of prop 2, you can't use MAGMA, since99you're making a claim for general x,y!100In thm 8, f and g have to be over Z_{(p)} or the mod-p condition doesn't101make sense.102Word "nonic" ??? What's that?103104It was well researched, I learned much, and someone could find this105paper *very* useful when doing research.106I can't give it higher because of typos and lack of clarity.107Grade: 92%108109110111