...
Written Report | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | Poor | Average | Good | Excellent | Max Points |
How does your agent work? | Pipeline description Description is vague and lacks detail ; user interaction is unclear on functionality, conversational flow, and examples (0). | Basic pipeline description explanation provided but missing depth or key details clarity on key aspects such as flow or examples (1.5). | Well-detailed pipeline with clear functionality and conversational flow explained (3Clear explanation of functionality, conversational flow, and user examples, but missing exceptional detail (2). | Comprehensive, clear, and visually aided pipeline description that is easy to understand explanation of functionality, conversational flow, and varied, testable examples illustrating agent capabilities (4). | 4 |
Intent and Slot Classifier | Explanation of intent and slot classifier is missing or vague; no performance analysis or metrics provided (0). | Basic explanation of intent and slot classifier with minimal performance data and limited analysis of challenges (1.5). | Detailed explanation with good performance analysis (e.g., accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score) and discussion of challenges (32). | Comprehensive explanation, with including strong performance analysis , detailed metrics(metrics, tables, or confusion matrices), discussion of challenges, and innovative extensions model improvements (4). | 4 |
Exclusion Mechanism | Exclusion mechanism is unclear, with no testing or pros and cons analysis (0). | Basic explanation provided, but lacks clarity in implementation and testing (1.5). | Clear explanation with testing and pros/cons analysis, but room for improvement (3). | Thorough explanation of implementation, testing, pros/cons, and strong performance data (4). | 4 |
Extensions to the Bot | Extensions are unclear or not described; impact is not evident (0). | Extensions described but lack depth or clear motivation (1). | Well-documented extensions with clear motivation and impact analysis (1.5). | Comprehensive description of innovative extensions with clear benefits and motivations (2). | 4 |
Pilot User Study | User study setup and results are missing or unclear (0). | Basic user study presented with limited results and insights (2). | Well-structured user study with good results and analysis of findings (3). | Detailed, well-analyzed user study with strong quantitative and qualitative insights (4). | 4 |
Conclusion | Conclusion is missing or vague, with no reflection or future suggestions (0). | Basic summary provided but lacks depth or critical reflection (1). | Clear conclusion with reflection and practical improvement suggestions (1.5). | Strong, insightful conclusion with critical reflection and actionable improvement ideas (2). | 4 |
Clarity and Presentation | Writing is unclear and poorly structured; formatting is messy (0). | Writing is somewhat clear but lacks polish and structure (1). | Clear and well-structured writing with minor presentation issues (2). | Very clear, professional writing with excellent structure and layout (3). | 6 |
Total Points | 30 |
...