Class
Discussion & Presentations

One of the best
ways to
deeply understand a topic is to discuss the topic with others.
Therefore, everyone is expected to actively participate in the
classroom discussions. You may use your paper
reviews as the basis for
discussion, but please do not feel a need to limit your comments to
what you wrote in your evaluations. I encourage everyone to ask
questions about or offer clarifications for confusing parts of the
papers, and to think about the limitations of or possible extensions to
the work being discussed.

Each person should sign up to be a presenter on one paper, taking both the role of an advocate and a skeptic. Your presentation should be no less than 10 mins and no more than 20 mins (The sign up sheet will be available on the bulletin board near ACES 5.120 and you must sign up by 9/3). You must send me your presentation (either ppt, pdf, or keynote) by 11:59PM the day before your presentation.

The advocate gives the elevator pitch for the paper: what is the topic of the paper, what are its main results, why the system or idea is an improvement upon the previous works (if any), why does the result matter, and so on. The answers to these questions may be different from the ones the authors gave in the paper.

Each person should sign up to be a presenter on one paper, taking both the role of an advocate and a skeptic. Your presentation should be no less than 10 mins and no more than 20 mins (The sign up sheet will be available on the bulletin board near ACES 5.120 and you must sign up by 9/3). You must send me your presentation (either ppt, pdf, or keynote) by 11:59PM the day before your presentation.

The advocate gives the elevator pitch for the paper: what is the topic of the paper, what are its main results, why the system or idea is an improvement upon the previous works (if any), why does the result matter, and so on. The answers to these questions may be different from the ones the authors gave in the paper.

The skeptic should discuss why we should be cautious in interpreting the results of the paper. The skeptic should also suggest additional research directions that could build upon, improve, or otherwise augment the paper under discussion.