Assignments
To be filled based on students choices
| Student | Supervisor | Topic |
|---|
| Jan van Gent | Tambet Matiisen | Methods training self-driving car |
| Villem Tõnisson | Karl-Oskar Masing | ELMo embeddings and text similarity |
| Maarja Pajusalu | Raivo Kolde | Visualisation of medical data |
| Tanya Shtym | Tambet Matiisen | Traffic light detection by fusing camera and map info |
| Siyuan Gao | Jaak Vilo | Disease trajectory analysis by frequent subgraph pattern mining |
| Dmytro Zabolotnii | Tambet Matiisen | Human-like speed curves |
| Heidi Korp | Naveed Muhammad | Modelling driving at roundabouts |
| Jaan Õmblus | TBA | TBA |
| Farhan Syakir | Amnir | TBA |
| Ivan Slobozhan | ?? | Classification under incomplete and noisy labels PU learning approach |
| Dmytro Urukov | Mikhail Papkov | Improving microscopy image segmentation with object detection |
Reasearch plan
1. Research Plan
Sellele ülesandele ei saa enam lahendusi esitada.
First draft
2. First draft
Sellele ülesandele ei saa enam lahendusi esitada.
Final research report
3. Final research report
Sellele ülesandele ei saa enam lahendusi esitada.
Reviewing tasks
The following table describes which persons you need to review.
Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 must review the work by Student.
| Student | Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 2 | Extra eviewer |
|---|
| Jan van Gent | Farhan Syakir | Dmytro Zabolotnii |
| Villem Tõnisson | Ivan Slobozhan | Maarja Pajusalu |
| Maarja Pajusalu | Siyuan Gao | Jaan Õmblus |
| Tanya Shtym | Dmytro Urukov | Farhan Syakir |
| Siyuan Gao | Maarja Pajusalu | Villem Tõnisson |
| Dmytro Zabolotnii | Heidi Korp | Jaan Õmblus |
| Heidi Korp | Jan van Gent | Dmytro Zabolotnii |
| Jaan Õmblus | Ivan Slobozhan | Dmytro Urukov |
| Farhan Syakir | Jan van Gent | Tanya Shtym |
| Ivan Slobozhan | Villem Tõnisson | Siyuan Gao |
| Dmytro Urukov | Tanya Shtym | Heidi Korp |
Reviewing guidlines
- Review is not a listing of grammar errors
- Review is a listing of logical errors and ideas to pursue further
- It is ok to say in the review that you did not understand certain paragraphs or concepts
- Review should give suggestion in terms of presentation of ideas and layout
- Review should contain a clear opinion about the work you are reviewing
- Still be polite and write the review in the form you would like to receive
First write a short paragraph describing the work as a whole. Write what is good and bad in it and derive your final judgement about the work. Next fill the following reviewing form. This review form contains questions that provide a framework to structure you critical comments into separate blocks. So use those question sections to convey your critical comments about the work.
SPage linktrong?
A good review mostly discards all grammar mistakes and deals with presentation and content. Try to write something that yourself would find instructive if you were an author. In particular, mark all places which you cannot understand or which seem illogical to you as a reader. For those of you who have not done it before, there is a longer Estonian tutorial how to review. It is a long text and covers different reviewing levels so do not implement all suggestions. Send the final review to me and the person who you are reviewing. If you do not know the mail address of the author send it only to me. I will forward it.
- I will not accept reviews that contains only a listing of grammar errors
- I will not accept reviews that have no clear opinion about the work
- The opinion can be completely wrong or unfair as long as it is justified
Presentations
Progress
| Student | Initial draft | First draft | Reviews | Final report |
|---|
