Themes and application areas include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

*Combinatorics and other aspects of Discrete Mathematics such as:

- Combinatorial Structures
- Discrete Optimization
- Discrete Probability
- Graph Drawing
- Graphs and Networks
- Mathematical Programming
- Number Theory
- Algebra, and Random Structures

*other aspects of Computer Science such as:

- Communication Networks
- Computational Geometry
- Computer Graphics and Computer Vision
- Computer Systems
- Cryptography and Security
- Data Compression
- Databases and Information Retrieval
- Distributed Algorithms
- Experimental Algorithmics
- Machine Learning
- On-line Problems
- Quantum Computing
- Pattern Matching
- Robotics
- Symbolic Computation, and the World Wide Web

*and applications in the Sciences and Business such as: Biology, Physics, and Finance.

The program committee encourages submissions from researchers
in the discrete mathematics
and experimental and applied algorithms communities.

Submissions from the discrete
mathematics community may address the design and analysis
of algorithms for discrete structures or the development of algorithms
as tools for investigating significant open questions in
mathematics.

Experimental and applied submissions may deal, for example, with efficient implementation of fundamental algorithms or with heuristics for basic difficult problems. They should provide new and significant insights into algorithmic performance and/or design or discuss the methodology of doing experimental performance analysis. Applied papers should deal with algorithms applied in a specific practical setting and should include convincing evidence that the algorithms or data structures discussed are useful and efficient in the particular context.

- introduction of a new technique?
- novel use of known technique?
- talented use of known technique?
- traditional use of known technique?
- trivial use of technical knowledge?

- first step (opens a new area)?
- last step (closes an important area)?
- giant step (makes essential progress)?
- none of the above?

- Is the paper a research contribution?
- Is is an experience paper/experimental paper?
- Or is it both?

The text before this line will be made available only to the program committee, but not to the author. You may also make your evaluation available to the author(s), by placing the "

9-10: An enthusiastic yes. An excellent paper - advances the field in

an important way - well written and makes it easy to understand what

the significance of their result is - everyone should definitely

attend the talk. This should be among the top 10% of the papers

accepted to the conference. I will fight strongly for this paper.

8-8.99 A strong vote for acceptance. A solid contribution - I feel I

learned something worthwhile from this paper - I want to attend

the talk. This paper should be in the top third of the papers in

the conference.

7-7.99 A vote for acceptance. This will be in the middle third of the

papers at the conference. Not a stellar result, but clearly worth

accepting.

6-6.99: A weak vote for acceptance. A reasonable contribution to

an interesting problem - or maybe the contribution is good but

the authors don't seem to understand what it is and/or express it

well - or maybe it's a good paper, but the subject area is marginal

for the conference.

5.0-5.99: Ambivalent. I might support accepting this paper,

but I don't advocate accepting it.

Probably publishable as a journal paper in a medium

journal, but a bit too specialized or too incremental

for SODA '04. Or perhaps it has nice ideas but

is too preliminary, or too poorly written.

4.0-4.99 A competent paper, but not of sufficient interest/depth

for SODA '04. A weak to moderate vote for rejection,

but I might not object very strongly if others pushed for the paper.

2.5-3.99: A solid vote for rejection. Too preliminary / badly-written /

making-such-a-minor-improvement-on-such-an-esoteric-topic for SODA '04.

It is very unlikely that I could be convinced to support this paper.

1-2.49 A strong vote for rejection.

A poor paper, unsuitable for any journal.

I will fight to have this paper rejected from the conference.

0.01-.99: Absolute reject. Completely trivial and/or non-novel and/or

incorrect and/or completely out of scope.

- I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. I have some idea of what this paper is about, but I'm not all that confident of my judgment on it.
- I am fairly familiar with the area of this paper, and have read the paper closely enough to be reasonably confident of my judgment.
- Consider me an "expert" on this paper. I understand it in detail.