Paper Presentation (paper #2, 2/9)

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

Marc Lanctoc, et al. A Unified Game-Theoretic Approach to Multiagent Reinforcement Learning. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 4193–4206, 2017
Link: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3294996.3295174
Presenters: Sanchay Kanade, Mohanti Reddy Bommu

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