Grading Policy
| SNo | Activity | Marks | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Paper Presentation | 10 | 20 mins paper presentation: Instructor plus peer grading |
| 2 | Paper Review 1 | 5 | In class: Based on abstract, introduction, fatal flaws |
| 3 | Paper Review 2 | 15 | At home: Above plus full-fledged AI paper review: risks, ethics, datasets; on review platform; Read from existing openReview reviews |
| 4 | Class Participation | 5 | 1 mark for each active class participation |
| 5 | Guest Lecture: In-Class Quiz | 5 | |
| 6 | Project Proposal and Literature Survey | 10 | |
| 7 | Project Mid-Term Presentation | 10 | |
| 8 | Final Project Presentation | 15 | |
| 9 | Attendance | 5 | |
| 10 | Assignment 1 | 10 | |
| 11 | Assignment 2 | 10 | |
| Total | 100 |
Paper Presentation Evaluation Criteria
Each individual paper presentation will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
| SNo | Category | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Presentation Quality (spoken and slides) | 3 |
| 2 | Q&A | 1 |
| 3 | Discussion: Reasons to Accept | 2 |
| 4 | Discussion: Reasons to Reject | 2 |
| 5 | Explaining Approach | 2 |
| Total | — | 10 |
Each presenter is expected to clearly articulate the paper’s key ideas, defend their interpretation during Q&A, and contribute to discussions on whether the paper should be accepted or rejected.
Paper Replication Project – Evaluation Plan
Objective
Replicate a NeurIPS-like paper in a social good setting.
Total Marks: 35 (10 + 10 + 15)
- Evaluation 1: Proposal & Gantt Chart (10 Marks) – Feb 19 (Wednesday)
- Evaluation 2: Mid-Project Progress (10 Marks) – Post Mid-Sem Break
- Evaluation 3: Final Presentation (15 Marks) – End of Semester
Evaluation 1: Proposal & Gantt Chart (10 Marks) – Feb 19
- Format: 10-minute group presentation
- Criteria:
- Understanding of the Paper (4 marks) – Explanation of the paper and its key contributions
- Feasibility Analysis (3 marks) – Assessment of whether the paper can be replicated based on available code/data
- Gantt Chart & Planning (3 marks) – Clear project timeline with milestones
- Understanding of the Paper (4 marks) – Explanation of the paper and its key contributions
Evaluation 2: Mid-Project Progress (10 Marks) – Post Mid-Sem Break
- Format: Short update presentation (approx. 10 minutes)
- Criteria:
- Replication Progress (5 marks) – How much of the paper has been successfully replicated
- Challenges & Solutions (3 marks) – Problems faced and how the team is addressing them
- Adherence to Plan (2 marks) – Is the project on track as per the Gantt chart?
- Replication Progress (5 marks) – How much of the paper has been successfully replicated
Evaluation 3: Final Presentation (15 Marks) – End of Semester
- Format: Detailed group presentation with results and learnings
- Criteria:
- Successful Replication (6 marks) – Whether key experiments/results were reproduced
- Social Good Adaptation (5 marks) – How well the replication has been contextualized for social impact
- Analysis & Insights (4 marks) – Interpretation of results, limitations, and future scope
- Successful Replication (6 marks) – Whether key experiments/results were reproduced