5023 Technical Paper Assignments

As discussed in the syllabus and in class, those students taking the "grad version" of the course (5023), as opposed to the "undergrad version" (4023), are required to do additional assignments. Those assignments involve choosing a topic, writing a paragraph describing that topic, doing a literature search and turning in a list of references, writing summaries of appropriate technical papers found, making comparisons between these papers, and evaluating the appropriateness of the methods discussed for a robot tour guide. Students not taking this version of the course do not need to complete these assignments.

Topic Paragraph

The first step in this assignment is to determine your topic. The topic may be any topic covered in the course textbook (Computational Principles of Mobile Robotics, Second Edition, Gregory Dudek and Michael Jenkin, 2010, Cambridge University Press). To ensure that your topic is not overly broad nor overly narrow, you should pick a topic to which Dudek and Jenkin have dedicated at least two sections but no more than two chapters of their book (not counting the first two chapters or the appendices). For example, the topic "robotics" is covered in all 12 chapters, so it is overly broad. Similarly, the topic "locomotion" is covered in a single subsection, so it is too narrow. (Note that robot locomotion is actually a very broad topic if viewed from a certain perspective; however, viewed from the perspective of this course, it is too narrow.) On the other hand, "Representing and Reasoning About Space" is the topic of a single chapter, so it has an appropriate breadth to it. Note that this is a guideline only, so if you want to select a topic that appears to be too broad or too narrow according to this guideline, please contact me and we can discuss whether it is appropriately broad.

Once you have decided on a topic, you are to write a paragraph describing, in your own words, the topic you have selected. (If you are unclear as to what it means to described something "in your own words," please read OU’s academic integrity website, particularly the documents related to plagiarism.) The point of your writing this paragraph is to ensure that you have looked at your proposed topic in enough depth to make a topic selection appropriate for your work in this course.

Your topic paragraph should be approximately 100-200 words in length. (This is a guideline range. Values somewhat outside this range are acceptable. However, if you go much over 200 words, I may take off points for being excessively verbose.) You should submit an electronic copy of your topic paragraph through D2L. Due: 11:00 pm, Thursday, 02 February 2017.

References

The second step in this assignment is to conduct a literature search to find publications describing two different approaches to the topic you have chosen. (Actually, you could conduct part or all of this literature search while determining your topic. However, you are not required to turn in your list of references until after you have turned in your topic paragraph, so you may conduct the literature search second.) The approaches you decide to cover may include those discussed in the textbook (for example, if you have chosen the topic "system control," you could decide to cover the subsumption approach which is discussed in your textbook). However, at least one of the two approaches should not be discussed in detail (although it may be discussed briefly) in your textbook.

You will need to find at least one publication describing each approach. The exact number of publications you use is up to you to determine. If you find a single publication that describes an approach in sufficient detail for you to get a good understanding of how it works, that one publication is sufficient. If you discover that the one publication you have found on an approach is insufficient for you to understand that approach, however, then you'll need to find more publications on that approach or move on to another approach.

The publications you use must be refereed technical publications. These include conference papers and journal articles (whether published in print or on the web) but not popular sources such as magazines (e.g., Discover Magazine) or un-refereed sources (such as most web sites, even for departments or labs). Moreover, conferences or journals used should be professional conferences or journals, rather than student conferences or journals. It is okay if some or all of the authors of your selected publications are students—they often are in professional publications! However, the conference or journal should be one in which professionals regularly publish. If you are in doubt about a possible source, you should check with me before using it.

Turn in complete citations for these two approaches. Here are guidelines for what a complete citation includes.

• For journals:
  • A complete citation must include:
    • article title,
    • author name(s),
    • name of journal,
    • pages, and
    • year.
  • If available, the following should also be included:
    • volume,
    • number and/or month, and
    • URL and access date,
    • DOI.
• For conference, symposium, or workshop proceedings:
  • A complete citation must include:
    • article title,
    • author name(s),
    • conference title,
    • pages, and
    • year.
  • If available, DOI should also be included.
  • If available, the following may also be included:
    • editor,
    • volume or number,
    • month,
    • location of the conference,
    • primary sponsoring organization(s),
    • publisher, and
    • URL and access date.
  How much of this optional information you include for a proceedings is a judgment call. You should make this decision based on how well-known the event is. If you don’t know how well-known an event is, err on the side of providing too much information, rather than too little. In general, provide as much information as possible for workshops as well as for conferences and symposia in their first few years.

  You may choose any standard reference format for your references. However, you must format all of your references consistently.

You should submit an electronic copy of your references through D2L. Due: 11:00 pm, Thursday, 09 February 2017.

Draft Review

The third step is to select one of the two approaches for which you have found publications, and write a review of it. The review will have three components:

1. Approach Summary. You are to write a summary that includes the main ideas behind the approach. This summary does not need to compare this approach to any other. However, it should be detailed enough that a reader familiar with different approaches to the same topic should be able to recognize that the approach you are summarizing is, in fact, different.

   The approach summary will include these points:

   1. The domain/application.
   2. The problem to be solved or question to be answered.
   3. The motivation for solving this problem or answering this question and what novel robotics components (concepts, software, hardware, etc.) are involved.
   4. The hypothesis, if appropriate.
   5. The approach and methodology.
   6. The experiment(s).
   7. The results.
   8. The conclusions.
   9. Future work.

   Please Note: Taking the first line or two from each paragraph in a paper, stringing them together, and changing around a few words here or there to make things read better, is NOT a summary. It is plagiarism—a form of academic misconduct. Any time you quote a source, you must include the quotation in quotation marks and clearly indicate the source of the quotation. If you find yourself with more than a couple of brief quotes in each summary, then you are quoting too much. To summarize a paper, you need to (1) read it, (2) understand it, and (3) briefly relate its main points in your own words. If you don't have your own words to describe the approach, that probably means that you don't understand the paper—you'll need to go back to steps 1 and 2 and visit me during office hours as needed to help you with step 2. (I don't expect most students to have problems understanding the difference between a summary and plagiarism. This message is for those few who do.) Again, if you don't understand what it means to describe something "in your own words," please read the OU’s academic integrity website, particularly the documents related to plagiarism.)

   The summary should run from 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page. (Again, this is a guideline range. Values somewhat outside this range are acceptable. However, if you go much over 4 pages, I may take off points for being excessively verbose.)

2. Internal Evaluation. Once you have summarized the approach, you should give an internal critical evaluation of it. The term 'internal' here is meant to indicate that the evaluation is of one approach, not a comparison between approaches. Also, the term 'critical' here does not mean negative. Rather, it means, like any good critic, you should thoroughly evaluate the approach, in a principled way, and give your best judgment as to its strengths and weaknesses. The critical evaluation is worth one third of the review points and should be extensive.

   Your internal evaluation should contain the following components:

   Criteria by which you evaluate the approach.

   You should choose several criteria that are appropriate for evaluating this approach. (In general, six to eight criteria should be sufficient although you could certainly have more.) These criteria could come from many sources such as the paper itself, related papers from the literature, your textbooks for this course (don’t overlook Chapter 3 of Writing for Computer Science), and from your knowledge of computer science, engineering, mathematics, or related fields. They could also include more general criteria such as originality/novelty of the approach, contributions to the field, empirical and theoretical results, correctness, and completeness.

   
   

   Justification for these criteria.

   You should briefly justify your selection of each criterion with regard to the topic of the paper being reviewed.

   
   

   An evaluation of the approach with respect to each criterion.

   You should give your own evaluation, either positive or negative, of the approach with respect to each criterion. Be sure to justify your evaluation by referring to information found within, or derivable from, the paper(s) describing the approach. Note that, even if you choose to use criteria from the paper being reviewed, your evaluation of the approach with respect to those criteria may differ from the evaluation given by the authors of the papers you are reviewing.

   NOTE: The internal evaluation is an evaluation of the approach, not an evaluation of the presentation of the material or of the quality of the research conducted. For example, if you explain that the approach is (or isn't) efficient with respect to time or space, that is an evaluation of the approach and would likely be appropriate for your review. If, on the other hand, you explain that the paper is (or isn't) well organized, that is an evaluation of the presentation of the material. It is okay to note presentation issues in passing but they should not be the focus of your review. Similarly, if you explain that the experiments in the paper were not repeated sufficiently many times to obtain statistically meaningful results, that is an evaluation of the quality of the research conducted. It might be important to note such issues as they effect your ability to judge with respect to other criteria (e.g., it might be difficult to know if an approach is effective in such as case) but such issues should not be considered evaluation criteria on their own.

   The internal evaluation should run from 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page. (Again, this is a guideline range.)

3. Application Evaluation. In addition to the internal evaluation, you should give a critical evaluation of the approach with regard to its use on a tour guide robot. Think of the kinds of characteristics the approach should have and discuss whether the approach in question has these characteristics and to what degree. You should include both your reasoning and your conclusion as to how suitable the approach is for the mission of being a tour guide.

   The application evaluation should run from 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page. Again, this is a guideline range.)

You should submit an electronic copy of your draft review through D2L. Due: 11:00 pm, Thursday, 16 February 2017.

Draft Slides

The fourth step is to prepare draft slides for your in-class presentation.

• Each presentation will be 15 minutes long with 3 minutes for questions and answers.
• You should use no more than 15 slides during your talk (although you may prepare additional slides for use during the question and answer period).
• Each review presentation will cover the same three components as your written review:
  1. Approach Summary,
  2. Internal Evaluation, and
  3. Application Evaluation.
• Make the slides high-contrast. (No white letters on a pink background or vice versa.)
• Keep each slide simple. Limit each slide to a few list items, one equation (or two very simple equations), a simple figure, or a table with very few columns and rows. There is no need to try to put your entire paper on a slide or to try to spell everything out in great detail. You will be talking and can provide sufficient detail with what you say. The slides should be for main points only. Allowing the slides to ramble on and on, or to contain excessive repetition, or other similar problems, will only detract from their usefulness. While I am grading you on your slides, I don't need them to explain the whole of your paper to me. I have your paper for that. The purpose of your slides is to support your talk. Blah, blah, blah. Do you get the feeling this is getting longer and longer but not saying anything more? Well, okay then; do not make your slides like this paragraph. Make them like the opening sentence or two, which had all of the points without all of the words.
• Have an overview slide near the start of your talk and a review or summary slide near the end.
• If you use colors, use them for important points only. They should not distract your audience.
• For additional ideas on how to give a good presentation, see my presentation on how to give a good technical presentation.

You should submit an electronic copy of your draft slides before class through D2L and turn in a printed copy at the start of class. Acceptable electronic formats include OpenDocument Presentation (.odp), OpenOffice.org 1.0 Presentation (.sxi), Microsoft PowerPoint 97/2000/XP (.ppt), Microsoft PowerPoint 2007 (.pptx), and Portable Document Format (.pdf). You may also use Keynote (.knt) with prior approval. Due: 11:00 pm, Thursday, 02 March 2017.

Final Slides

The fifth step is to revise your draft slides for your in-class presentation, to get them into their final form. I will provide you with feedback on your draft slides to aid you with your revisions. You should submit an electronic copy of your final slides in the morning before class through D2L. Due: Thursday, 11:00 am, 23 March 2017.

Final Review

The sixth step is to revise the draft review, based on the feedback you have received. The final review will have all of the same parts and will be the same length as the draft review. It will simply be a better version of the draft.

You should submit an electronic copy of your review through D2L. Due: 11:00 pm, Tuesday, 27 March 2017.

Review Presentation

The seventh step is to actually present your review to the class. As stated previously, each presentation will be 15 minutes long with 3 minutes for questions and answers. I may call on you to give your presentation on Thursday, 23 March 2017; Tuesday, 27 March 2017; or Thursday, 30 March 2017. I will not announce the exact presentation schedule ahead of time. This means that you will need to attend class all of these days and be ready to present when called on. You will not be graded on your actual speaking (except that you will lose points if you fail to give a presentation). The presentation grading will be for the slides. As stated above (under "Final Slides," you will need to turn in the final draft of your slides for grading on Thursday, 23 March 2017.

Note that you may actually present before you turn in your Final Review, depending on which day you present. Regardless, you should be revising your Final Review well prior to its due date of 27 March.

Draft Technical Comparison Paper

The eighth step is to write a draft paper that covers both approaches to the topic you have chosen (see "References" above).

Your comparison paper will begin with an introductory overview of the topic and the various approaches to it, explaining why the topic is important and why various approaches have been proposed. The length of this introductory overview will be approximately 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page.

For each approach, you will provide an approach summary and internal evaluation, as you did in single approach review (see "Draft Review" above). The length of the approach summary and internal evaluation for each approach will be the same as it was for the single approach review. That is, each approach summary will be approximately 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page, for a total of 6 to 8 such pages for both summaries together. Similarly, each internal evaluation will be approximately 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page, for a total of 6 to 8 such pages for both internal evaluations together. (Once again, this is a guideline range. Values somewhat outside this range are acceptable. However, if you go much over 24 pages for all summaries and internal evaluations together, I may take off points for being excessively verbose.) As you have already completed this exercise for one approach, you may include the text of your final review within this overall paper and concentrate your current effort on completing the remaining two reviews and internal evaluations.

Further, your paper must include a comparison of the two approaches, pointing out both similarities and differences between them. As with the internal evaluations, this will be a critical comparison. (Again, the term 'critical' here does not mean negative. Rather, it means, like any good critic, you should thoroughly compare the approaches, in a principled way, and give your best judgment as to how they stack up to one another.) The basis for your comparisons will be the individual criteria put forth by the authors of each paper, other criteria you have learned from the textbook or other sources you have encountered while researching your topic, other fundamental engineering and computer science criteria that you have learned in your academic career (e.g., space and time complexity of algorithms), and any other criteria you deem relevant. The comparisons of both approaches should run a total of 8 to 14 pages in length, with at least two pages clearly laying out the criteria you will use in comparing the approaches. A table summarizing the comparisons would be welcome but is not sufficient to constitute the entirety of your comparison. Instead, your comparison must include significant text (and possibly figures) to help the reader understand how each approach compares to the others on each comparison criterion.

In addition, your paper must include an application evaluation for the one approach you deem best, based on your comparison of the two approaches. As with the single approach application evaluation, this application evaluation will be with regard to a tour guide robot and will run from 3 to 4 pages in length at roughly 80 characters per line, 25 lines per page. (Again, this is a guideline range.) Iff the approach you covered for the single approach review is the approach you deem best, based on your comparison, you may use the text of your individual review application evaluation as the application evaluation in this paper. If, on the other hand, you determine that the other approach is superior, you will need to write up a new application evaluation for the approach.

Finally, your paper must include a complete set of references for all the approaches covered, plus any additional sources you are using for your comparison criteria. The contents of these references are covered above under "References."

NOTE: If you are unsure how to structure your comparison paper, consider following the outline here. Introductory Overview Name and brief description of topic Brief explanation of why topic is important Approach One Name Brief description Motivation for this approach Approach Two Name Brief description Motivation for this approach (Note that the motivation for each approach should explain why the approach is expected to be an improvement over previous approaches to this topic — perhaps it will work faster, be more accurate, or accommodate different environments than previous approaches — not a restatement of why the topic is important.) Evaluation Criteria (for internal evaluations & comparisons) Criterion One Name Brief description Justification Criterion Two Name Brief description Justification ... Criterion n Name Brief description Justification Approach One Summary & Evaluation Summary The novel components (concepts, software, hardware, etc.) involved The hypothesis, if appropriate The approach and methodology The experiment(s) The results The conclusions Future work Evaluation Evaluation with respect to criterion one Evaluation with respect to criterion two ... Evaluation with respect to criterion n Approach Two Summary & Evaluation Summary The novel components (concepts, software, hardware, etc.) involved The hypothesis, if appropriate The approach and methodology The experiment(s) The results The conclusions Future work Evaluation Evaluation with respect to criterion one Evaluation with respect to criterion two ... Evaluation with respect to criterion n Comparison of the Two Approaches Comparison based on criterion one Approach one eval recap Approach two eval recap Similarities Differences Comparison based on criterion two Approach one eval recap Approach two eval recap Similarities Differences ... Comparison based on criterion n Approach one eval recap Approach two eval recap Similarities Differences Summary of Comparisons Application Evaluation Desired Characteristics with Respect to Application Characteristic One Name Brief description Characteristic Two Name Brief description ... Characteristic n Name Brief description Approach Characteristics Compared to Desired Characteristics Characteristic One Similarity Difference Characteristic Two Similarity Difference ... Characteristic n Similarity Difference Suitability Summary of suitability for application based on above Conclusions

You should submit an electronic copy of your draft paper through D2. Due: 11:00 pm, Tuesday, 11 April 2017.

Final Paper

The ninth and final step is to revise the draft paper, based on the feedback you have received. The final paper will have all of the same parts and will be the same length as the draft review. It will simply be a better version of the draft.

You should submit an electronic copy of your paper through D2L. Due: 11:00 pm, Thursday, 27 April 2017.