From UBC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

February Assignment

(February will spill into March, and the March assignment will spill into April.) Your February assignment is to describe some research that has been published. You should choose two papers, by different authors (no authors in common) where one builds on the other. You should describe the background, and then describe the incremental contribution of one paper over the other. What was the actual contribution of the latter paper? The reader should be able to understand the problem, where it fits into the big picture, the solution proposed and how that solution was evaluated. Add your own thoughts on how successful it was and how it can be improved. See for some suggested topics.

Extra Rules

  • You need to follow the rules on the main page and you should follow the guidelines there.
  • Each page should have a principle author. You do not need co-authors but can have co-authors; co-authorship is encouraged. If others help you with your page, you should help them too.
  • You need to add your page to the table of contents in a position that makes sense. Fell free to edit and change the structure of the table of content to give it a coherent structure.
  • Please choose a topic that is different from other courses that you have done (or else you need to negotiate with the instructors to make sure you are not counting the same work multiple times).
  • You should refer to wiki pages and to other research papers as appropriate. It should be clear what the two papers you are describing, but you should also refer to other papers.

Key Dates

  • February 27 - very last day to choose pages
  • March 9 - First Draft ready for critiquing. Each page has a number Fn on the home page. If you authored Fn, you will critique pages F(n-1), F(n+1) and F(n+6) where each addition is mod 18 (as there are 18 pages numbered F0 to F17). Write your comments in the discussion tab of the page. Please give constructive feedback --- give the sort of feedback you would like to receive --- and answer the questions on the evaluation page. Please feel free to respond to them there too, and actually have a discussion. The critiques are not meant to be anonymous; you are meant to be helping each other.
  • March 13 - Critiques due
  • March 17 - Final pages ready for marking
  • March 17-20. Use the template at
  • March 20 - Marking Completed

Marking Scheme

Here is a tentative marking scheme. This is subject to change. Feel free to add questions, and edit the questions if they do not make sense.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

  • The topic is relevant for the course.
  • The writing is clear and the English is good.
  • The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds).
  • The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand.
  • The abstract is a concise and clear summary.
  • There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear.
  • There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code.
  • It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic).
  • It is correct.
  • It was neither too short nor too long for the topic.
  • It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page).
  • It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki.
  • The references and links to external pages are well chosen.
  • I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic.
  • This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate.

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: