Course talk:CPSC522/Improving Prediction Accuracy of User Cognitive Abilities for User-Adaptive Narrative Visualizations

The notion of task/window/accuracy are featured in the results. But I don't know what any of them are. Why do you use two words (window, task) for the same thing? Surely we should do better in later tasks as we have more information? Do we have more information for later tasks? If not, what is the pont of plotting with Window as the x-axis.

Surely it is unfair to compare them on the best task. That is using test accuracy as a stoppping crierion, which you are not allow to do. You have to determine when to stop before seeing the test results. Either determine when to stop based on cross valudation or decide when to stop up from (e.g., after all data has been seen, which I would interpret as at the last task).

"tuning the hyper-parameters resulted in reduced accuracy for the majority of the models" seems implausive to me. Is there really no signal, or dod you start with the optimal parameters? Or is is just not statistically significant?

I need a better explanation of how you evaluated "Preprocessing and selection of features". Did you choose one feature or a subset of them? I can't work out which features were actually selected. Did you try L1 regularaization which tends to ignore features?

We need references to parts that are someone else's work.

Overall the page is written very well and easy to follow. As noted by other critiques, it is missing refences to previous work; only after reading part of the page I realized the first paragraphs are explaining a previous work. Similarly, the page is lacking references in general; I think it would be quite difficult for a non-expert person to understand what’s going on as all the machine learning techniques have no references. Altought I think CPSC 522 students all have this background, it would be better to add references to allow non-experts to gather some background.

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 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. 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 1 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 1 I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18.5

Great page, very readable! Same as the critiques below, I cna't find the links to the study you reference. Perhaps consider retitling your component of the work from extension, I understood the meaning after looking back at the wiki structure but was confused at first. Do you mean Logistic regression for logic regression? I wasn't able to double check this. Overall really nice page

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 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. 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 1 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. 5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

I think this page is great and extremely well written. I really like the way you organize your papers. Links to builds on pages and related pages are missing as well as the annotations sections(not reflected in the grade below). The only thing I would change is to create a future work section, where you talk about what can be done in the future given the results of your hypothesis.

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 5 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 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. 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 1 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. 5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

In the summary section why is information capitalized? Maybe include links in the related/build on sections?

In the feature selection section you use the past tense for your own study "all of the features were scaled" but then you use present tense "samples are grouped". But in the section before you used future tense "we will employ a leave one out". Maybe be consistent in using the past tense for the original study, and the present or future (pick one and stick to it) for your study? I would suggest using the present. Or at least make it more clear when using the past tense for the original study and when it is the past tense of your study (as you have already done it so it is in the past).

I would retitle the discussion section the conclusion as you dont really discuss. I think you have a good structure and good explanations of what you are doing and why as well as solid presentation of the results.I think it would be expected to cite the original study in the bibliography?

Other than that, great page!!

The topic is relevant for the course. 5 The writing is clear and the English is good. 4 The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students. 5 The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5 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. 5 It is correct. 5 It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5 It was an appropriate unit for a page. 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 1 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 1 I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5 This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 19

Great page overall. Few pieces of feedback. Related pages are not linked. The annotations are missing. Also, I like the concise format of the discussion. However, I think you can elaborate a bit more on the implications of the passing/failing of hypothesis and include a future works discussion. 18/20 for the page as it is right now :)