From cb49ecc60f2754c24e3fcfa9bc70ed4b41e9607b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobias Eidelpes <tobias@eidelpes.info>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 23:04:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add first review for QBFs

---
 review_1/review_1.tex | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 review_1/review_1.tex

diff --git a/review_1/review_1.tex b/review_1/review_1.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3be484
--- /dev/null
+++ b/review_1/review_1.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
+
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage{csquotes}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\section{Summary}
+\label{sec:Summary}
+
+The paper first gives a short introduction to the history of QBF solvers and
+their relation to SAT solvers. The general structure of the paper is introduced.
+A section about defining the terms used throughout the paper follows and the
+complexity of these types of problems is mentioned. The Couterexample-Guided
+Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) technique for solving QBFs is defined and the
+principle is demonstrated by using pseudocode. The fourth, and main, section of
+the paper discusses different applications for QBFs and the content of the paper
+is summarized in the conclusion.
+
+\section{Evaluation}
+\label{sec:Evaluation}
+
+
+
+\section{Overall impression}
+\label{sec:Overall impression}
+
+Overall I think your paper provides a good overview of quantified boolean
+formulae.
+
+\section{Language}
+\label{sec:Language}
+
+The language used throughout the paper is in general suitable for scientific
+writing with respect to the used vocabulary. There are some grammatical and
+spelling errors. Most notably indefinite articles that are missing or wrong
+(e.g., page 5 in the section \emph{Planning}: \enquote{A existence...}). Some
+sentences are grammatically incorrect or are hard to read due to their
+structure. The sentence on the bottom of page 3 and the beginning of page 4 is
+an example of this. Scientific writing normally does not use abbreviations such
+as \emph{doesn't} or \emph{we're}. There is also one sentence at the end of
+section 4.3.1 which is started with \enquote{Another} but never finished.
+
+\section{Layout}
+\label{sec:Layout}
+
+It seems that the course template has been used, although the title page has
+been changed to be on a single page and a table of contents is included. The
+introductory slides of this course states that
+
+\end{document}