WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
Computer Science Department

CS4341 ❏ Artificial Intelligence ❏ A'06

Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri - noon - AK 233
Prof. David C. Brown, Fuller Lab 131, (508) 831-5618, dcb at cs.wpi.edu

Version: Thu Aug 31 16:09:31 EDT 2006

PROJECT 2 - An Intelligent System - Evaluation Criteria

All projects will be graded out of 100 points for convenience, and will be adjusted later to conform to the class grading scheme already provided to you. Grading will be subtractive. That is, you start with 100 points, and points will be deducted for problems found. This produces lower scores, is harder to grade, but is much fairer and more consistent.

The grading will be divided into consideration of:
* 40 pts  Required       (i.e., what the problem description asked for)
* 10 pts  Presentation   (i.e., style, layout, comments)
* 50 pts  Demonstration  (i.e., the output from and actions by the system 
                                -- layout, clarity, completeness, how well tested).


REQUIRED:	

   - be solved using only the Rule Interpreter (RI) from project 1;
   - be challenging enough so that it cannot be done in a single step;
   - have intermediate results
   - uses many rules for each solution obtained
   - requires some specialized knowledge to solve problems
   - uses just one of forward chaining or backward chaining
   - uses just attribute/value WM format
   - does not require any, or much, calculation
   - does not require any human intervention or additional input;
   - does not require backtracking
   - problems solving requires intelligence


   - system must be an example of one of these types of tasks.

         Configuration 
         Criticism 
         Diagnosis by Classification
         Evaluation 
         Parametric Design


   - have provided items: 

     * Descriptions of your problem and your domain.
     * An explanation of why forward- or backward-chaining.
     * Brief, clear documentation that describes the design of your
        intelligent system.
     * A description of any changes you made to your RI 
     * All the test cases, commented
     * The output from the IS test/demonstration runs (not annotated).
     * A listing of all the rules, predicates, and actions.


PRESENTATION:

        Clear documentation and descriptions.
        Good coding standards.
        Clear system output.
	Readable test cases and explanations. 
        Good choice of action and predicate names.
        Good choice of rule language.
        Good choice of predicate description language.
        Good choice of action description language.
        Good choice of WM description language.


DEMONSTRATION: 

        All aspects working & correct.
        Is clearly an example of a required task (e.g., configuration)
	How well tested (i.e., enough good tests done?)
	                (e.g., when doesn't it work?)
	Completeness of messages (i.e., can we understand what's happening?)
        Knowledge seems sensible (and not "fake")
        Includes at least one "impressive" example (seems "smart")