b85169f4e7
- PhD defense slides (defense.key, Nov 2018) → phd_defense/ - Master's defense on MOOC peer evaluation (Dec 2014) - ENGI 600 data-driven program repair (Apr 2015) - COMP 600 data-driven program completion (Fall 2015, Spring 2016) - COMP 600 Program Splicing presentation + feedback + response (Spring 2018) - Program Splicing slides in .key and .pdf formats (Spring 2018) Each file has a .md transcription with academic frontmatter. Skipped www2015.pdf (duplicate of existing www15.zip) and syncthing conflict copy.
2.1 KiB
category, type, person, date, source
| category | type | person | date | source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| academic | academic | Yanxin Lu | 2018-03 | comp600_feedback_2018.pages |
COMP 600 Presentation Feedback
Peer and instructor feedback on Yanxin Lu's COMP 600 presentation (Program Splicing), March 2018.
Good pace for the motivation part which explained the problem really well. Stance is not good. Kept moving. Kept looking back to the screen. Not really smooth in the beginning of the talk. Related work is a little bit long which takes a lot of time. Energy is not enough when introducing program splicing. Good pace for the demo. But I was moving all the time. Need to stand still.
Kept moving in the architecture slide, and kept looking back. Good gesture for demonstrating the KNN search. PDB went a little bit fast. Need more details.
Enumerative search could be faster and don't need to show the process of enumeration. Kept moving all the time in the benchmark problems. Not very smooth in the benchmark problems.
Too much text in the user study slide.
Not smooth in the user study result slide, especially in the sieve problem.
Stance is not good through out the talk. Went a little bit fast at the end of the talk because of time.
Best feature
-
PDB and related work could be shorter.
-
The motivation, example makes the problem easy to understand.
-
Mention the limit of the related work.
-
Good demo
-
Confident
-
Good voice control and eye contact
-
Tables were well explained.
-
Good handling questions.
Message/organizations
- Need more technical details.
- Source code license has to be covered
- Demo was not very useful while a few slides can do the work.
- Programming problems might not reflect the real-world improvements.
- Explain more on the experiments.
- Need statistically significance and power for the hypothesis test. Too few samples.
- Not clear what the contribution is
- Not mention limitations of the work.
- The example in the demo might not be a good one.
Delivery
- Keep his stance
- Not showing enough passion
- Louder
Visuals
- Architecture flowchart could be made better