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?