> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://emory.gitbook.io/ai-research-practicum/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://emory.gitbook.io/ai-research-practicum/assignments/hw7-experiments.md). # HW7: Experiments ## Writing * Write the Experiments section in your team overleaf project. * Recommended length: 100 - 200 lines (including tables and figures). * Submit the PDF version of your current draft up to the Experiments section. ## Rubric * **Data Section** (1 point) * Are the sources and choices of the datasets clearly explained and justified? * Is the data preprocessing pipeline well-documented (if any)? * Are the dataset characteristics adequately described? * **Data Split** (1 point) * Is the division of data into training/development/evaluation sets clearly specified? * Are the statistics for each data split comprehensively reported? * If using cross-validation, is the procedure properly explained? * **Model Descriptions** (2 points) * Are the models described with sufficient references to the approach section? * Are the differences between methods clearly distinguished? * Is there a clear connection between model design choices and research objectives? * **Evaluation Metrics** (2 points) * Are all evaluation metrics clearly defined with proper mathematical notation? * Is the choice of each metric well-justified? * Are the limitations of the chosen metrics discussed (if any)? * **Experimental Settings** (1 point) * Are the hyperparameters and implementation details fully specified? * Is the hardware/software environment clearly described? * Are the experiments documented in a way that enables replication? * **Model Development** (1 point) * Is the model development process clearly documented? * Are the key decisions and modifications during development explained? * Are the challenges encountered and their solutions discussed? * **Result Tables** (2 points) * Are the experimental results presented in well-formatted, readable tables? * Are all tables properly labeled with units and descriptions? * Are baseline as well as existing state-of-the-art comparisons included and clearly marked? * **Result Interpretations** (2 points) * Are the key findings from the results clearly identified and explained? * Are the strengths and weaknesses of the results discussed? * Are the implications of the results connected to the research questions?