Course talk:CPSC522/Monte Carlo Localization

It might be useful to add the “sentence summary” and the “conclusions / future applications” sections, following the wiki page template. The technical and math parts for the second paper are a bit fast to follow for someone outside the field; however, I believe this page tried to make them as easy as possible. The first paper was presented in class. In the CPSC 522 website it is said that papers should be different from the one presented in class. Probably this instruction is not very clear, since it is stated in the course website but not in the wiki page for the assignments. There is a typo in the "Properties of MCL" section: "lies in teh way".

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree": • 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 (where the students have diverse backgrounds): 4 • The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand: 4 • The abstract is a concise and clear summary: 5 • There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear: 3 • There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code: 5 • It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic): 5 • It is correct: 5 • It was too short for the topic (i.e., 1 means too long, 3 means about right): 3 / 3 • It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page): 3 • It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki: 5 • The references and links to external pages are well chosen: 5 • 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.

oops posted twice...

Here are some comments and suggestions I have for your page (I wrote these yesterday so if some things have already been fixed/changed please ignore :)) the summary is still the phrase from template

you are missing some spaces after inline math formulas

there is a typo "teh way" in properties of MCL section

didn't the MCL paper also focus on adaptive sampling size N? seemed like an important aspect for the local/global trade off as well, especially since you mention this for the second paper

some of the subsections are in bold text and some are not

3.2 intro paragraph has typo "is outlines"

particle correction section - "the weight wt" it is not clear that wt is the name of the variable

I would like to know more about how the paper ran experiments and what were their results and maybe more details about the contribution of the second paper over the first? Be explicit about what the second paper introduced, it is not clear if the only impact is the extension to this type of problem (pedestrians) - I am missing the "so what?" of this page, it is very foundation-like in its exposition

I think you overall have a good background section done, although it needs some minor edits and I think you can take it further by adding more explicit details about the contributions and the comparison of approaches in the two papers (and maybe even explicit own opinion about improvements)

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. 1 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. 4 (but not sure if its really that needed for the first paper) It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4 It is correct. 4 It was too short for the topic (i.e., 1 means too long, 3 means about right) 2 (need more about contribution) It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5 It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5 The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5 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. 3 If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 15