Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: zz-x2580
COMP30027 Machine Learning
Project 2 Report Marking Rubric
Method – 4 marks Critical Analysis – 8 marks Report Quality – 3 marks
100%
• Insightful consideration of data
representation, and its interaction with
learner choice
• Hyper-parameters identified and contrasted
where necessary
• Appropriate use of evaluation metrics
100%
• Argumentation is logical and incontrovertibly
supported by evidence
• Demonstrates a high level of understanding of
theoretical properties of methods
• Theoretical properties of methods are well-
linked to practical observations
• Thorough results analysis and laudable error
analysis
100%
• Report structure is logical and formal, in line
with typical standards in academic writing
• Generally clear and easy-to-follow
• Ideas and arguments are cohesive, where the
components of the report clearly indicate how
they relate to the whole
• Adequately concise and meets word limits
80%-90%
• Data representation mostly ignored or
abstracted
• Hyper-parameters identified but perhaps only
weakly contrasted
• Appropriate use of evaluation metrics
80%-90%
• Argumentation is logical and thoroughly
supported by evidence
• Demonstrates a moderate level of understanding
of theoretical properties of methods
• Theoretical properties of methods are linked to
practical observations
• Thorough results analysis, and fair attempt at error
analysis
80%-90%
• Report structure is logical and formal, with small
divergences from typical academic standards
• Generally clear, with small disruptions in flow
• Ideas and arguments are coherent, and generally
the work fits together as a unit
• Adequately concise and meets word limits
70%
• Data representation ignored, but appropriate for
chosen methods
• Hyper-parameters un-identified or not
contrasted
• Evaluation is logical and formal, but not
appropriate
70%
• Argumentation is logical, but evidence is lacking in
some areas
• Demonstrates a moderate level of understanding of
theoretical properties of methods, but extended
analysis not always clear or successful
• Theoretical properties of methods are not clearly
linked to practical observations
• Only minimal error analysis attempted
70%
• Report structure is logical, but possibly informal or
out- of-line with academic standards
• Some unclear sections that do not detract from the
overall work
• Ideas and arguments are mostly coherent, but do
not come together in a unified way
• Violate word limits (too long or too short, with >
10% difference from the upper or lower limit)
School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne
Notes:
For categories labelled (80%-90%) and (50%-60%), 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 ((100%) and (70%) respectively).
For categories labelled (0-40%): unsatisfactory (N) grades depend on the number of factors in which the submission failed to meet the
required standards. More details will be given in the brief comments from the marker.
50%-60%
• Data representation not appropriate for chosen
methods
• Evaluation is illogical or informal
• Methods are inadequate and prevent meaningful
analysis
50%-60%
• Argumentation is illogical in places, and evidence is
inadequate or contradictory
• Theoretical properties of methods are not discussed
• No signs of abstract thought and/or error analysis
50%-60%
• Report structure is flawed
• Some unclear sections which detract from the overall
work
• Ideas and arguments are notably incoherent
• Violate word limits (too long or too short, with >
10% difference from the upper or lower limit)
0-40%
• Tasks are essentially incomplete or not attempted
0-40%
• Argumentation is generally absent
• Mostly data and evaluation results without
corresponding analysis
• Theoretical properties of methods are not discussed
0-40%
• Ideas and arguments are missing or impossible to
follow
• Report has no structure
• Not a formal report, even at a stretch
