Skip to Content

COMP473 : Advanced Algorithms

Presentation

Due: week 5 class

Task

You will be required to present a paper from this set (the part after the comment "paper references") to the rest of the class. (If you find another paper that you'd like to present, ask me about doing that.) Each of the papers is about the application of some type of ant-based heuristic solution to an optimisation problem.

Broadly, what you want to do is:

  1. describe the optimisation / decision problem being addressed, probably with reference to another source;

  2. describe the ACO algorithm, and compare it to other ACO algorithms;

  3. discuss the results presented in the paper; and

  4. give a critical analysis of the paper, noting its strengths and weaknesses.

The style of the presentation should be like an ordinary, informal small-group lecture, and run for about 20-25 minutes, allowing time for questions afterwards.

Assessment

Your final presentation will be out of 10 marks, and will be assessed according to the following rubric:

Assessment
Attribute		Levels of Attainment
UnsatisfactoryFunctionalProficientAdvanced
Presentation Structure Muddled and disorganised: the structure of the presentation was not made clear via either signposting on the slides or explicit indications in the verbal presentation. It was possible to determine that the presentation had a structure, but this was not made explicit on either the slides or in the verbal presentation. The structure of the presentation was made clear via both the slides and verbal cues. An exceptionally well-structured presentation; would serve as a great example for others to follow.
Content: Explanation of Optimisation Problem Unclear problem definition. The presentation indicated the problem, although it would require some work to understand how to relate it to an example. The presentation clearly the problem, and it is relatively straightforward to understand how to relate it to an example. The audience had a revelation in its understanding of the problem.
Content: Short Discussion of Real-World Applications Non-existent Mentioned that some exist, and broadly where. Discussed one or two examples. Clearly showed the relationship between one or two examples and the problem.
Content: Description of Previous Approaches Non-existent Mentioned that some exist, and broadly what type. Discussed one or two instances. Discussed one or two instances, and worked through one.
Content: Description of the Ant-based Model Only cursory, putting up an equation or two. Adequate explanation of equations. Adequate explanation of equations and ideas, relating them to other examples from lectures. Good explanation of equations and ideas, relating them to other examples from lectures.
Content: Discussion of Results Results only briefly noted, or not at all. Some relating of results for ant model to those of other (baseline) approaches. Good relating of results for ant model to those of other (baseline) approaches. Good relating of results for ant model to those of other (baseline) approaches, with discussion of whether the ant model seems well suited to this problem.
Content: Critique No critique. Some discussion of whether the work was carried out well, and whether the results are promising or not (regardless of the paper's claims). As for Functional, but with additional support for critique (e.g. from other papers discussing the paper presented). As for Proficient, but with the level of thoroughness found in a good literature review on the topic.
Visual Aspects of the Presentation Slides not well-presented: some combination of inappropriate content, inappropriate level of detail, and inconsistencies in formatting. Slides contained the right level of detail, with perhaps a few lapses in quality. Slides contained the right level of detail throughout, and were formatted neatly and consistently. Exceptionally well-presented; very professional.
Speaking Skills Some combination of: not adequately rehearsed; incoherent presentation; inaudible; almost entirely read off the slides; ran out of time. Read off the slides some of the time, but the presentation was coherent and audible, and overall the verbal presentation added something to the material on the slides. Obviously well-rehearsed. The verbal presentation was clear and precise, and complemented the slides rather than repeating their content. Exceptionally professional and polished presentation; lively manner that made the content entertaining and interesting.
Audience Interaction Didn't look at the audience; spent most of the time looking at the screen or elsewhere. Looked at the audience throughout the presentation. Scanned the audience throughout the presentation, watching for signs of misunderstanding or boredom; responded appropriately. Actively interacted with the audience in a natural style; made eye contact with most people in the audience.