Paper Presentation (paper #6, 2/23)

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

Gianluca Brero et al. Learning to Mitigate AI Collusion on Economic Platforms. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.07106.pdf

Presenters: Archit Bansal, Naina Chaturvedi

Please answer these questions concisely.

Email *

What is your name? *

Content: Motivation & Research Questions

10: The research question is clearly stated, and informative background is provided to appreciate the importance.

8: The research question is somewhat clearly explained, and necessary background is provided to understand the importance.

6: The research question is stated, though I cannot understand why it is important.

4: The research question is vaguely explained. I'd rather read the paper myself.

2: I can barely understand what the research question is, making the rest of the presentation hard to follow.

Content: Key Contribution

10: Key contributions are explained clearly, succinctly and precisely. Novel techniques are highlighted and a broad intuition is provided.

8: Key contributions are explained clearly. Novel techniques are highlighted, but more intuition on the technique is needed.

6: Key contributions are stated. Novel techniques are highlighted, but little intuition is provided.

4: Explanations of contributions and techniques are likely too hasty and have many ambiguities.

2: Shambolic and demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper or full of ambiguity and hand-waving.

Content: Narrative and Facilitate Understanding

10: Offer a compelling new understanding of the paper. Examples are provided when necessary. Afterwards, the audience can easily recall the paper’s most salient aspects.

8: Offer an accurate and high-level understanding of the paper. Technical results are presented in the context of a larger narrative. The audience understands the paper better than a casual reading would suggest, possibly noticing and being able to recall especially interesting or unique parts.

6: Clear and correct but uninteresting, typically lacking a contextual narrative. The presentation has little or no ambiguity but will often appear like a set of loosely related results. The audience has a hard time recalling the paper afterwards.

4: Unclear or incorrect, these presentations fundamentally fail to satisfy an audience interested in understanding the paper.

2: Shambolic and demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper. The audience regrets listening.

Presentation: Text & Formula & Visual Aids

4: Did not notice any misspelled words or formula. Visuals explain and reinforce the rest of the presentation.

3: Noticed few misspelled words or formula. Visuals relate to rest of presentation, but fall short in some parts.

2: Several misspelled words or formula. Visuals are few or not sufficiently related to the rest of the presentation.

1: Many misspelled words or formula. Visuals not used or are superfluous.

Q & A

Questions are not answered or answers are incorrect / very unclear.

Questions are welcome and the presenters happily answer them.

One thing / aspect that you think the presenters did a good job.

One thing / aspect that you think the presenters could improve upon.

Feel free to provide any other comments.

Send me a copy of my responses.

Submit

Clear form

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

reCAPTCHA

Privacy Terms

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Forms