From 5f64443bdc3a4a4094463077c90326a8a795f239 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: raazesh-sainudiin Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:09:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] adding second later submission --- .../GroupProject02/PEER_REVIEW_02_11.md | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ .../GroupProject12/PEER_REVIEW_12_08.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 101 insertions(+) create mode 100644 dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject02/PEER_REVIEW_02_11.md create mode 100644 dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject12/PEER_REVIEW_12_08.md diff --git a/dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject02/PEER_REVIEW_02_11.md b/dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject02/PEER_REVIEW_02_11.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..814aa56b --- /dev/null +++ b/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. + + + + diff --git a/dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject12/PEER_REVIEW_12_08.md b/dbcArchives/2024/PeerReviews/GroupProject12/PEER_REVIEW_12_08.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..51ccd713 --- /dev/null +++ b/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. +