School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne
COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 2 2021: Assignment 3 Report Marking Rubric
Method Critical Analysis Report Quality
(25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting)
10
• System design is admirably clear and
unquestionably structured to provide testable hypotheses which will provide knowledge for the given problem
10
• 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
10
• 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
• 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
8 or 9
• 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
8 or 9
• 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
• 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
7
• 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 not clearly linked to practical behaviour
• Demonstrates abstract thought, but extended analysis not always clear or successful
• Little connection to the academic community
7
• 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
School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 2 2021: Assignment 3 Marking Rubric
Method Critical Analysis Report Quality
(25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting)
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
5 or 6
• 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
5 or 6
• 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
• Methodologicalstrategiesareincompleteorab- sent
0 to 4
• 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
0 to 4
• 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.