School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne
COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 1 2022: Assignment 3 Report Marking Rubric
Method Critical Analysis Report Quality
(25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting)
10 10 10
ˆ System design is admirably clear and
unquestionably structured to provide
testable hypotheses which will provide
evidence toward the specified research
question
ˆ Clearly identifies the knowledge gained about the task
ˆ Argumentation is logical and incontrovertibly supported
by evidence
ˆ Theoretical properties of methods are well-understood
and linked to practical observations
ˆ Demonstrates a very high level of abstract thought
ˆ Admirably situated with respect to the academic com-
munity
ˆ Publishable with perhaps minor changes
ˆ Ideas and arguments are cohesive, where the components
of the report clearly indicate how they relate to the whole
ˆ Report structure is logical and formal, in line with typical
standards in academic writing
ˆ Generally clear and easy-to-follow
ˆ References are suitably synthesised and chosen dis- crim-
inately with respect to the given problem
ˆ Adequately concise and meets word limits
8 or 9 8 or 9 8 or 9
ˆ Utilises relevant methodological strate-
gies which are connected to logical hy-
potheses
ˆ System design is clear and reproducible,
but some minor ideas are overlooked
ˆ Evaluation is systematic and logical
ˆ Clearly identifies the knowledge gained about the task
ˆ Argumentation is logical and thoroughly supported by
evidence
ˆ Theoretical properties of methods are well-understood
and linked to practical observations
ˆ Demonstrates a moderate level of abstract thought
ˆ Attempts to situate with respect to the academic com-
munity, but perhaps not clearly
ˆ Ideas and arguments are coherent, and generally the
work fits together as a unit
ˆ Report structure is logical and formal, with small diver-
gences from typical academic standards
ˆ Generally clear, with small disruptions in flow
ˆ References are suitably synthesised, but are too few or
chosen indiscriminately
ˆ Adequately concise and meets word limits (± 10%)
7 7 7
ˆ Utilises relevant methodological strate-
gies which are connected to plausible hy-
potheses
ˆ Description of system design is missing
some important idea, making the design
question- able or dubious
ˆ Evaluation is logical but not systematic
ˆ Attempts to identify the knowledge gained about the
task, but vague or unclear
ˆ Argumentation is logical, but evidence is lacking in some
areas
ˆ Theoretical properties of methods are understood, but
not clearly linked to practical behaviour
ˆ Demonstrates abstract thought, but extended analysis
not always clear or successful
ˆ Little connection to the academic community
ˆ Ideas and arguments are mostly coherent, but do not
come together in a unified way
ˆ Report structure is logical, but possibly informal or out-
of-line with academic standards
ˆ Some unclear sections that do not detract from the over-
all work
ˆ References are present, but terse or disconnected from
the problem at hand
ˆ Perhaps small divergences from the word limits
1
School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne
COMP90049 Introduction to Machine Learning, Semester 1 2022: Assignment 3 Marking Rubric
Method Critical Analysis Report Quality
(25% weighting) (50% weighting) (25% weighting)
5 or 6 5 or 6 5 or 6
ˆ Utilises methodological strategies, but discon-
nected from corresponding hypotheses, or fun-
damentally limit the prospect of gaining knowl-
edge
ˆ Description of system design lacks several cru-
cial methodological components
ˆ Evaluation is attempted but illogical
ˆ Knowledge gained about the task is fundamentally
flawed or lacking
ˆ Argumentation is illogical in places, and evidence is
inadequate or contradictory
ˆ Theoretical properties of methods are not in evidence
ˆ No signs of abstract thought and/or analysis
ˆ No connection to the academic community
ˆ Ideas and arguments are notably incoherent
ˆ Report structure is flawed
ˆ Some unclear sections which detract from the overall
work
ˆ References are disconnected or absent
ˆ Possibly way off the word limits
0 to 4 0 to 4 0 to 4
ˆ Methodological strategies are incomplete or ab-
sent
ˆ No indication of knowledge gained about the task
ˆ Argumentation is generally absent
ˆ Mostly data without corresponding analysis
ˆ Theoretical properties of methods are not in evidence
ˆ No connection to the academic community
ˆ Ideas and arguments are missing or impossible to fol-
low
ˆ Report has no structure or references
ˆ Not a formal report, even at a stretch
Notes:
For categories labelled (8 or 9) and (5 or 6), it is at the marker’s discretion to determine how well the report meets the standards of an H1 or P respectively. An alternative
interpretation: the higher of the two marks indicates that the submission was close to, but not meriting, the category above ((10) and (7) respectively).
For categories labelled (0 to 4): unsatisfactory (N) grades depend on the number of factors in which the submission failed to meet the required standards.
Brief comments from the marker are annotated on the submission.
2