\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\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}

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 that should be resolvable by either using spellcheck software or
by rereading the paper (for the grammatical errors). Abbreviations such as
\emph{don't} or \emph{we're} should not be used in scientific writing. At the
end of section 4.3.1 a sentence is started with \enquote{Another} but never
finished.

The abstract is very short and does not describe the relevance of your topic or
the content of your paper. I would start with a sentence like
\enquote{Quantified Boolean Formulae allow encoding complex problems such as
planning, two-player games and verification in a compact and natural way...}.
Hinting at the speed or general performance of QFB solvers is also an option.

The introduction touches upon the relevant information needed to put solving
QBFs into relation with other problems, e.g., the SAT problem. The motivation
for solving QBFs and why QBFs are important is not clear. I would suggest
including a sentence or two about what makes QBFs interesting, what kind of
problems are solvable by using QBFs and why the research community could not do
that before by using SAT solvers for example.

The individual parts of the paper are a bit disjointed because the transition
from one section to the next is not always clear. See for example from section 2
to section 3 where suddenly 2QBFs are introduced. Additionally, it is not said
why we need CEGAR and what it is good for. I like the idea to compare QBFs to
normal SAT in terms of complexity. For someone who is mostly familiar with the
complexity classes up to \textsf{NP}, further explanations for \textsf{PSPACE}
would be beneficial. For example discussing why \textsf{PSPACE} mirrors games
would aid in understanding the complexity landscape for these types of problems.
I would also suggest rewriting the sentence at the bottom of page 3 to page 4
because it is worded in such a way that it is difficult to understand without
rereading the sentence multiple times.

For section number 4 going into more detail about each of the different problems
would give the reader a more complete picture. It is not clear for example why
section 4.1 is named \emph{Compression}. The text following the headline defines
the reachability problem which the reader cannot put into relation with the term
\emph{Compression}. The same problem applies to section 4.4 where the relation
of the headline to the text is only vaguely perceptible. The first paragraph for
\emph{Model Checking}, however, gives a short and concise description of the
problem and what the goal is. Likewise, section 4.3.1 contains a clear
description of the problem, how it is modeled using QBFs and what the solution
looks like. Applying a similar approach to the other sections would make it
easier for readers to know what to expect from each section and help them find
the information they need.

The conclusion is missing an outlook on further research directions in the field
of QFBs which would wrap up the paper in a straightforward fashion.

In summary, the structure of the paper is good although the individual sections
could contain more explanations of the problems and their solutions. See
section~\ref{sec:Major issues} and \ref{sec:Minor issues} for a listing of the
identified problems.

\section{Major issues}
\label{sec:Major issues}

\section{Minor issues}
\label{sec:Minor issues}

\end{document}