Fast access:
- GitHub repository for ACM
- ACM template on Overleaf
- ShareLaTeX (Overleaf alternative)
- Literature Review Description (READ RELATED PART BELOW!)
- DAIMPL home page for general writing and presentation advice (sections 4.2–4.4)
Document Format
We will be using the ACM conference proceedings template on Overleaf. You can create your accounts in the website and share the document with each other and work on collaboratively.
You can also use the (university-hosted) version of Overleaf called ShareLaTeX. They do not have the official ACM template but you can import it yourself from GitHub repository.
You can install LaTeX to your own computer (each), download the GitHub template page, and use some sort of GitHub backhand to collaborate. I would not recommend this option, especially to beginners, hence using local LaTeX and being able to compile documents is significantly hard.
Literature Review Document
The content of the literature review document should be at least ~1 page in writing. You can use images and tables but do not extend 2 pages in total. References are not included in this limit, your PDF file can be 8 pages long with 6 pages of references if you are able to do that and it is still OK!
The minimum page limit increases by 0.5 pages per member: 2 pages minimum for 3 people group.
Presentation
Coming soon.
Final Report Document
The content of the final report should be at least ~6 pages in writing. You can use images and tables. References are also not included in this limit.
The minimum page limit increases by 2 pages per member: 10 pages for 3 people group.
Contents
Literature Review Document
The literature review template here can guide you on what to add and how to format your document. Key differences between that document and yours would be:
- Intentional exclusions are optional but quite useful to show that you have a grasp of your topic and knowledge about important research directions but choose not to focus on them.
- Existence/justification of research proposal is optional and high level. You are not expected to have plausible research proposals in this short amount of time. But if you can find one and build your documents around it, it would significantly boost our perception of your work.
The literature review document is the basis for your final report and your first scientific document. Therefore it focuses more on what you find and how you present it in terms of shape. Preparing this document should get you used to scientific writing tools and style. It should also show that you are on a good track in terms of grounding your topic and finding supporting papers. The more advanced requirements such as coherence, storytelling, and structure have more focus (more grade points) in the final report. Therefore you could see different grades for the same descriptions in their grading schemes.
Throughout the explanations, you will see mentions such as “significantly boost our perception of your work” or “is optional but quite useful” without significant numbers attached to them. Evaluation of your submissions will be around the grading schemes provided but inclusion of such parts might complete our perception of some elements which would boost your grade if done well.
Ex. Reviewer (us) of your document has questions about the content quality where topics are not represented clearly enough. “Intentional exclusions” of certain research directions found and provided by the authors (you) would show their understanding of the topic is strong but there are slight problems in expressing. Result: “Content quality” 6 pt -> 10 pt.
Presentation
Can be derived from the grading scheme. Can be updated with specifics.
Peer Review Document
A peer-review document is free-form and should contain answers to predetermined questions. These questions with details have been provided in the respective Moodle submission page.
The focus of this exercise is
- to expand your knowledge of the domain,
- to see your peers work to get inspiration in your work,
- to help your peers with their work in every aspect (see final report grading scheme).
Final Report Document
Can be derived from the grading scheme. Can be updated with specifics.
Grading Scheme
Grading and requirements are slightly different in the project route. Please refer to your supervisor for details if you took this option.
Literature Review (20/100)
(2 pt) Language and formal aspects
- Overall impression (structure, clarity, typeface)
- Language (spelling, grammar, punctuation)
- Expressiveness (comprehensibility, sentence structure, stylistic)
(9 pt) Scientific aspects
- (4 pt) Introduction (clear motivation and elaboration of the problem)
- (5 pt) Scientific style (usage of citations, selection of related work, definition of technical terms)
(9 pt) Argumentative aspects
- (5 pt) Content quality (factual correctness, topic understanding)
- (4 pt) Sound argument structure in supporting/critiquing the paper and related work
Peer Review (10/100) (Individual)
These documents will be evaluated at OK/NOT OK level and it is not easy to create a breakdown since it is significantly related to the paper you are reacting to as much as the quality of what you have written.
What is expected is that mainly
- you clearly understand the paper you are reading,
- you have evaluated the paper and presented your ideas respectfully,
- therefore you have helped your peer with their work.
Things you can write:
- You can suggest changes in the story,
- point out missing work that is important for them to mention,
- point out factually incorrect content, etc.
Presentation (25/100)
- (2 pt) Sending the presentation to the supervisor on time
- (5 pt) Content: motivation, hypothesis, related work, methods, evaluation
- (5 pt) Includes all related work papers (2 supporting papers)
- (3 pt) Time management
- (5 pt) Demonstrating fluent knowledge of the subject material
- (5 pt) Answering audience questions
Final Report (40/100)
(5 pt) Language and formal aspects
- Overall impression (structure, clarity, typeface)
- Language (spelling, grammar, punctuation)
- Expressiveness (comprehensibility, sentence structure, stylistic)
(14pt) Scientific aspects
- (4 pt) Introduction (clear motivation and elaboration of the problem)
- (5 pt) Scientific structure (conciseness of headings, clear progression of sections)
- (5 pt) Scientific style (usage of citations, selection of related work, definition of technical terms)
(21pt) Argumentative aspects
- (9 pt) Content quality (factual correctness, topic understanding)
- (9 pt) Sound argument structure in supporting/critiquing the paper and related work
- (3 pt) Future work/inclusion of student’s own ideas
Participation (5/100) (Individual)
Preparing and asking at least 2 questions for other presentations in their Q/A sessions. All activities such as emails with supervisors, and being active in Moodle discussions.