1. Presentation and project

2. Presenter
Define and motivate problem (if not discussed in class or not an obvious problem)
Explain solution(s)
This should be core
It is not sufficient to raise an interesting question without a potential solution
Given high level idea and then go into details (details are needed)
This does not need to be your original work
Present results
You do not need to conduct the experiment yourself
Be critical of what you got. Are the results from the authors trustworthy?
It would be a plus/extra credit if you test the algorithm yourself
How good/bad of the solution
Suggestion of future work/directions

3. Audience You are asked to rate each presenter
I will put the “task” up on canvas
It will be “graded” and a part of the 70%
Be critical. Treat yourself as a judge for some context. Need to comment on strength and weaknesses of a presentation
Grading metric for review (2 points max)
Below average (1 point)
Average (1.5 point)
Above average (2 points)
Your rating should be submitted before mid-night of the day after presentation
You have ~36 hours
Late submission won’t be accepted
Your input will be used to grade the presenter
Presenter should submit review also. It is treated as a self- appraisal and won’t be used to grade your presentation

4. Project proposal (Due on 3/14)
Define problem
Tentative approach(s)
Names of group members
How tasks will be split (if group project)
Work on the project now if you can. Don’t wait until after submitting your proposal. If you are not sure whether your project idea is good, just drop me an

5. Some project ideas
If you need some inspiration, check out the course website for links for project ideas
Project should require reasonable amount of effort
Effort of at least 3 HW assignments seem appropriate
However, you can reuse codes you generated from the assignment. No need to start from scratch
Unlike the presentation by the graduate students
You are suppose to implement and test your solution
So literature survey alone is not a valid project for this course

6. Grading metric (30%) Presentation: (10 out of 30)
clarity, structure, references
Informative: e.g., background literature survey
good insights and discussions of methodology, analysis, results, etc.
Technical: (10 out of 30)
Correctness, depth (ad hoc/theoretical-based), innovation
Evaluation and results: (10 out of 30)
sound evaluation metric
thoroughness in analysis and experimentation
results and performance
Labor cost adjustment
No of members 1 2 3 4 5 6
7>
Deduction (in %) 10 20 40 80

7. Expectation
Quality
Grade
Undergrad
Graduate
Just submitting
1/3
Department-level “conference”
2/3
University-level conference
3/3
2.5/3
National-level conference
N.B. It is just the approximate grade you expect given the subjective quality of your project. You don’t need to actually submit to a conference
N.B. The quality here means the quality for “acceptance”. Not the quality for getting a paper award. For example, if your work is likely to be accepted in a national-level conference*. You should get all the points for this part
* I am not referring to top conference like CVPR here. But some second/third-tier regional conferences

8. Submission (due on 5/7) Written report:
Problem description and motivation
What did you try to solve
Can be shorter if it is a common problem (e.g., segmentation)
Your approach(s)
Evaluation
Discussion: why it works or doesn’t work
Video/screencast “presentation”: not mandatory. But maximum 10% extra credit of the project
~ 30 minutes
Longer video is not always better
Only submit youtube/dropbox link to Canvas. Please do not upload the entire video
5 times usual late penalty (25% per day)

9. Final grade A: ~ 85% or above B: 70%-85% C: 55%-70% D: 40%-55%
F: Below 40%