Until 18.3. 23:59, send an email to the supervisor of your project listed here with a pdf containing:
Consider this as an opportunity for you to receive feedback
.pdf format, according to instruction below.pdf with
The project report and presentation should include the following sections:
In presentation (and report):
“Detective hat”: Intuitive (not just technical level) understanding of proof, assumptions, statement in depth
“Reviewer hat”: Which relevant questions does it shed light on and it actually answer it / solve the problem? How significant is the addition of this paper compared to existing literature
What are interesting, impactful follow-up questions they did not answer and would be interesting to pursue? Show evidence that the question(s) you identified are indeed relevant to understand important phenomena in practice and are novel in the literature. You can start with the paper’s weakness. Examples are
In report:
Break down the problem as much as you can into chunks that you can indeed pursue (or at least, the first few steps), e.g. to prove a conjecture give intuition, lemmas you think you need, and try to prove some of them.
Show your attempts to tackle the first few steps.
Each of the project proposal, progress report, and final project report should be neatly typeset as a PDF document using TeX, LaTeX, or similar systems with bibliographic references (e.g., using BibTeX). Check here for typesetting resources.
The total project grade will depend equally on
Basics:
Content (see this for corresponding details)
The later your presentation, the more of the last bullet point is expected to be included.
Grade determined by peer feedback and self-feedback on the presentation
See rubric which will be used for assessment.
Content:
The combination of presentation slides and report should contain the content described above. The way to split it will probably be different in each project. If you were able to discuss the proof in the amount of detail you find insightful during the presentation, you can focus more on your own work.
Furthermore the pure reproduction (including necessary restructuring and rephrasing) of paper result + proof presentation sections should not constitute more than 50% of the report. Your own investigations should be in the focus here. That may include an extensive literature review, experimental explorations, follow-up theoretical conjectures/results etc. If the proof is poorly presented in the original paper (i.e. convoluting the key ingredients etc.), a simpler proof will also count towards “own investigations”
Length: In the Neurips format (see template below) it should be at most 10 pages main text, excluding references and appendix, where you could add more experiments and proof of technical lemmas etc.
Style:
Please see the following guidelines which will be used to guide the presentation portion of the report grade
In terms of content, it is not the absolute results that will be graded (i.e. you don’t have to prove a new theorem or write a new conference paper), but the depth at which you investigate the paper’s faults and contributions critically, put it into context and the novelty and impact of the follow-up questions that you would like to pursue. Hence, primarily you will be graded on points 1-4 in Final Content
Obviously it’s great if you succeed to solve your follow-up questions (i.e. successfully manage points 5-6), and that’ll be a big bonus for the grade, but you can achieve a good grade without actually having publishable results. Maybe think of it as a proposal for a master thesis project with preliminary ideas and/or results.
| Date | Presenter | Paper title | Peer graders |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.12. | |||
| 13.12. | |||
| 16.12. | |||
| 20.12. |
most of those are published (even though we often only provide an arxiv link, as it often has the complete most updated version)
You can choose your own paper, however you have to double check with the instructor before registering the paper.
Please put your name down on the spreadsheet announced on moodle on 4.10. next to the paper you want to work on
If there are two papers listed for one number it means that you are expected to read both for context (this actually makes your life easier since you are given what you otherwise need to find yourself) and can choose to focus on one
One group per paper, two people per group. First come first serve.