All groups are allowed to participate in any of the sessions sessions. Yet each group is obliged to participate to their session (visualized as colored block). Each block consists of 4 groups.

The exam will be located in AI lab (VUB building Pleinlaan 9 on the 3th floor).  You have to take the elevators and on the third floor enter and go left. Then right to find the exam room. The name of the room is Purgatory.

This link provides the location of the building : https://ai.vub.ac.be/directions/

See also evaluation criteria below this table !

Information concerning the exam project can be found here

Groups and topics are assigned : look here

Presentation guidelines

During the exam you will have 20 minutes to present your article (provide context, explain methods and discuss most relevant results and conclusions). You are required to use slides (limit the number of slides to 15, no more no less) for your presentation.  You have to send the PDF version of the slides to us  the day before the exam (tlenaert@ulb.ac.be). Note also that we expect that every member of the group participates in the presentation, meaning that everyone has to present something.

After your presentation there will be 10 minutes for  questions, both by the reviewing group and by us.  Make sure that everyone of your group tries to answer at least one of the questions.  We will check whether every group member contributes sufficiently to the entire process!  Before the exam you will also receive the review of your work performed by another group in your session.  You can use this to improve your presentation and anticipate questions.

evaluation criteria paper:

1. 1)well-described context (including references)?
   

2. 2)sufficient explanation of the state-of-the-art?
   

3. 3)are the methods clearly described and are they sufficient to reproduce the work?
   

4. 4)are the results divided in understandable sections ?
   

5. 5)are the parameter choices clearly explained?
   

6. 6)is the relevance and importance of the results clearly explained?
   

7. 7)is there sufficient information in the captions of the figure to understand them?
   

8. 8)is the figure clear enough (axes named, labels large enough, etc.)?
   

9. 9)does the discussion section provide an overview of the results?
   

10. 10) does the discussion section go beyond the results?
    

evaluation criteria presentation:

11. 11. How well you introduce the problem and state-of-the art (problem definition, hypothesis, state-of-the-art, context)
    

12. 12. The overall quality of the presentation (pedagogic quality, definition of terminology, use of examples, manner and clarity of presentation)
    

13. 13. Efficiency of the presentation (Stay within the 20 minutes, rehearsed or not, slide organization and structure).
    

14. 14. Your critical assessment of the article (It does mean that when something is published that it is also good or that the information in the article is sufficient to reproduce the work)
    

15. 15. Association with the course (Whether and how you draw links to information you obtained in the theoretical sessions of the course, where you go beyond the course).
    

16. 16. Use of review (Was the review used in improving the presentation, clarifying things, anticipate questions/critiques)
    

17. 17. Quality of response (The ease of response to the questions, provide additional slides to answer questions from the review, do all participants answer questions)
    

17th of January 2019

16 of January 2019