Skip to content

pucrs-automated-planning/term-projects-2018

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

88 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

term-projects-2018

Repository for Term Project Material in 2018

Presentation Schedule -- Final Presentation (Room 516)

Time Slot Title Presenter
9h10 Using Automatic Planning for Supply Chain Management Alexandre Ichida
9h35 A COLREGs-Compliant Local Guidance System for Unmanned Surface Vehicles based on Hierarchical Task Network Darlan Jurak
9h55 Finding State-Action Similarities in Tabular Reinforcement Learning Using Low-Dimensional Embeddings Gabriel de Lima
10h20 Reinforcement Learning for Database Indexing Gabriel Licks
10h45 Learning Search Heuristics by Graph Convolutional Networks Pedro Ballester
11h10 Domain-independent image-based planning: results on the Atari video game Raphael Baldi
11h35 Constrained Path Planning for Energy Efficiency in Mobile Robots Renan Maidana

Presentation Schedule -- Proposals

Time Slot Title Presenter
10h00 Using Automatic Planning for Supply Chain Management Alexandre Ichida
10h15 A COLREGs-Compliant Local Guidance System for Unmanned Surface Vehicles based on Hierarchical Task Network Darlan Jurak
10h30 Finding State-Action Similarities in Tabular Reinforcement Learning Using Low-Dimensional Embeddings Gabriel de Lima
10h45 Reinforcement Learning for Database Indexing Gabriel Licks
11h00 Learning Search Heuristics by Graph Convolutional Networks Pedro Ballester
11h15 Domain-independent image-based planning: results on the Atari video game Raphael Baldi
11h30 Constrained Path Planning for Energy Efficiency in Mobile Robots Renan Maidana
11h45 Key Frame Plan Expansion With Machine Learning Guillermo Borges

Assessment Criteria

Part 1: Project presentation

The first assessment grading criteria is as follows.

  • Application Domain Complexity (30%) - How complex the application domain you selected is difficult to model, yet realistically achievable within the course.
  • Paper readability (40%) - How well written the 2-page paper you wrote is, we break this down into the following criteria
    • 20% - Introduction clarity: how well does the introduction answers these questions: what is the problem? why is it an important problem? how do aim to solve it? and what follows from your proposed solution?
    • 10% - How well do you refer to background material and relate it your proposed application area?
    • 10% - How detailed and realistically you plan the work for the rest of the semester?
  • Presentation clarity (30%) - How well you presented your project proposal, which we break down into three criteria
    • 10% - Use of time during the presentation
    • 10% - Slide quality (conciseness, use of figures, etc)
    • 10% - Presentation organization

Part 2: Project Report

The second assessment grading criteria uses two main criteria First, the technical form of the project

  • Application Domain Complexity (15%) - How complex the application domain you selected is difficult to model, yet realistically achievable within the course.
  • Domain Modelling (15%) - How close to the underlying domain is the planning model developed in the project? Are the proposed simplifications justified? What is the tradeoff of these simplifications?
  • Problem Complexity (15%) - How complex are the problem instances used in the experimentation? Are these instances computationally challenging or are they just toy problems?
  • Formalism Appropriateness (15%) - Is the selected formalism (Classical Planning of various types, HTN planning, reinforcement learning) appropriate for the selected domain? Is this selection justified?

Second, the report describing the project and its results

  • Report Clarity (10%): Is the report clearly written, following the guidelines for part 1
  • Report Problem Description (15%): Does the report describe the problem being addressed with enough detail that it can be replicated?
  • Report Implementation (15%): Does the report describe the solution both technically and theoretically in a way that allows others to replicate it?

Part 3: Final Presentation

The same criteria for the project presentation applies to the final presentation, with the following weights

  • 30% - Use of time during the presentation
  • 30% - Slide quality (conciseness, use of figures, etc)
  • 40% - Presentation organization

About

Repository for Term Projects in 2018

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published