adding second later submission

dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject02/PEER_REVIEW_02_11.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Peer-review of ScaDaMaLe Student Group Project: Federated Learning for Music Recommendation System
+
+# Reviewer
+
+- Anonymous
+
+# 1. Live/Video Presentation
+
+Recall/watch the live/video presentation carefully and decide on a score between 0 and 2.
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: Presentation is clear, and the processes are described in details.
+
+# 2. Structure of Project Repository
+
+The structure of the codes, including directory structure and coding/software-engineering practices,  were  
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: Project code is well structured with detailed documentation.
+
+# 3. Comments and explanations in code:
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: Code is well documented with comments.
+
+# 4. Originality or Difficulty of the Project
+
+Choose one of the following options: 1
+
+Motivation: Did not dive into techniques improving the scaling efficiency or performance on the task.
+
+# 5. Scalability of the Project
+
+Choose one of the following options: 1
+
+Motivation: The project used some scalable techniques, but the scaling efficiency was not analyzed.
+
+# 6. Total Grade
+
+Add up all the scores from the above 5 Categories and report it below.
+
+The Total Grade is: 8
+
+# 8. Detailed Constructive Comments
+
+Included in each points.
+
+
+
+

dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject12/PEER_REVIEW_12_08.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Peer-review of ScaDaMaLe Student Group Project: NeedleDDD
+
+# Reviewer
+
+Choose one of the following option: Anonymous
+
+# 1. Live/Video Presentation
+
+Recall/watch the live/video presentation carefully and decide on a score between 0 and 2.
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: The presentation is clear for someone with background knowledge in distributed training.
+
+# 2. Structure of Project Repository
+
+Choose one of the following options: 1
+
+Motivation: The names of the files demonstrate the functionalities, but the repo is not well-organized by folders.
+
+# 3. Comments and explanations in code:
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: The notebooks are well-documented.
+
+# 4. Originality or Difficulty of the Project
+
+Choose one of the following options: 2
+
+Motivation: A decentralized framework with many additional functionalities is developed, which shows its difficulty.
+
+# 5. Scalability of the Project
+
+Choose one of the following options: 1
+
+Motivation: Although it provides a decentralized framework, the task under research is not suitable. The training of neural networks is quite data-intensive, which will worsen the scalability of the framework.
+
+# 6. Total Grade
+
+Add up all the scores from the above 5 Categories and report it below.
+
+The Total Grade is: 9
+
+# 8. Detailed Constructive Comments
+
+Included in each point.
+