School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 1 2022: Assignment 3 Report Marking Rubric Method Critical Analysis Report Quality (25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting) 10 10 10 System design is admirably clear and unquestionably structured to provide testable hypotheses which will provide evidence toward the specified research question Clearly identifies the knowledge gained about the task Argumentation is logical and incontrovertibly supported by evidence Theoretical properties of methods are well-understood and linked to practical observations Demonstrates a very high level of abstract thought Admirably situated with respect to the academic com- munity Publishable with perhaps minor changes Ideas and arguments are cohesive, where the components of the report clearly indicate how they relate to the whole Report structure is logical and formal, in line with typical standards in academic writing Generally clear and easy-to-follow References are suitably synthesised and chosen dis- crim- inately with respect to the given problem Adequately concise and meets word limits 8 or 9 8 or 9 8 or 9 Utilises relevant methodological strate- gies which are connected to logical hy- potheses System design is clear and reproducible, but some minor ideas are overlooked Evaluation is systematic and logical Clearly identifies the knowledge gained about the task Argumentation is logical and thoroughly supported by evidence Theoretical properties of methods are well-understood and linked to practical observations Demonstrates a moderate level of abstract thought Attempts to situate with respect to the academic com- munity, but perhaps not clearly Ideas and arguments are coherent, and generally the work fits together as a unit Report structure is logical and formal, with small diver- gences from typical academic standards Generally clear, with small disruptions in flow References are suitably synthesised, but are too few or chosen indiscriminately Adequately concise and meets word limits (± 10%) 7 7 7 Utilises relevant methodological strate- gies which are connected to plausible hy- potheses Description of system design is missing some important idea, making the design question- able or dubious Evaluation is logical but not systematic Attempts to identify the knowledge gained about the task, but vague or unclear Argumentation is logical, but evidence is lacking in some areas Theoretical properties of methods are understood, but no
t clearly linked to practical behaviour Demonstrates abstract thought, but extended analysis not always clear or successful Little connection to the academic community Ideas and arguments are mostly coherent, but do not come together in a unified way Report structure is logical, but possibly informal or out- of-line with academic standards Some unclear sections that do not detract from the over- all work References are present, but terse or disconnected from the problem at hand Perhaps small divergences from the word limits 1 School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 1 2022: Assignment 3 Marking Rubric Method Critical Analysis Report Quality (25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting) 5 or 6 5 or 6 5 or 6 Utilises methodological strategies, but discon- nected from corresponding hypotheses, or fun- damentally limit the prospect of gaining knowl- edge Description of system design lacks several cru- cial methodological components Evaluation is attempted but illogical Knowledge gained about the task is fundamentally flawed or lacking Argumentation is illogical in places, and evidence is inadequate or contradictory Theoretical properties of methods are not in evidence No signs of abstract thought and/or analysis No connection to the academic community Ideas and arguments are notably incoherent Report structure is flawed Some unclear sections which detract from the overall work References are disconnected or absent Possibly way off the word limits 0 to 4 0 to 4 0 to 4 Methodological strategies are incomplete or ab- sent No indication of knowledge gained about the task Argumentation is generally absent Mostly data without corresponding analysis Theoretical properties of methods are not in evidence No connection to the academic community Ideas and arguments are missing or impossible to fol- low Report has no structure or references Not a formal report, even at a stretch Notes: For
categories labelled (8 or 9) and (5 or 6), it is at the marker’s
discretion to determine how well the report meets the standards of an H1
or P respectively. An alternative interpretation: the higher of the
two marks indicates that the submission was close to, but not meriting,
the category above ((10) and (7) respectively). For categories
labelled (0 to 4): unsatisfactory (N) grades depend on the number of
factors in which the submission failed to meet the required standards. Brief comments from the marker are annotated on the submission. 2