Paper presentation and critique rubrics

Each Thursday the class holds two paper sessions, one per period. Each session has a presentation group (20 minutes), a critique group (15 minutes), and class discussion (15 minutes). The two groups are graded independently. Who grades and how individual grades are set is described in grading.md.

General expectations for both groups:

• Ground every claim in the paper. Use technical language accurately.
• Every member presents, with content and speaking time shared equally.
• Grading emphasizes clarity, rigor, and depth of understanding, not polish.

Presentation group (100 points, 20 minutes)

Each criterion is worth 20 points and is scored in one of four bands.

Criterion	Excellent (18-20)	Good (14-17)	Fair (10-13)	Weak (0-9)
Overview and motivation The problem, why it matters, and the main contribution	A newcomer understands the problem, its clinical or technical stakes, and the contribution within the first few minutes.	Problem and contribution are clear; motivation is thin or generic.	Problem is stated, but the contribution is unclear or confused with prior work.	The audience cannot tell what problem the paper solves.
Methods and technical approach Data, models, and key design choices	Data (source, scale, splits), model, and key design choices are explained correctly and at the right depth, including why each choice was made.	Correct and complete, with little on why choices were made.	Superficial or partly incorrect; key components are missing.	Substantially incorrect or missing.
Results and evidence Main results, metrics, and baselines, interpreted	Main results are interpreted against baselines and metrics, including what they do and do not show.	Main results and baselines are presented with some interpretation.	Results are shown with little interpretation, or baselines are missing.	Results are missing, misreported, or unexplained.
Strengths and contributions What the paper does well, relative to prior work	Concrete, evidence-based strengths, placed relative to prior work.	Concrete strengths with limited comparison to prior work.	Generic strengths ("novel", "well written").	No strengths identified, or praise without support.
Presentation quality Structure, slides, delivery, and timing	Logical flow, clear visuals in the group's own words, on time, all members contribute equally.	Clear overall; minor timing or slide issues.	Hard to follow, text-heavy slides, timing clearly off, or uneven speaking time.	Disorganized, slides read aloud, or major timing problems.

Slides should support understanding rather than replicate the paper. Interpret results; do not only show them.

Critique group (100 points, 15 minutes)

Each criterion is worth 20 points and is scored in one of four bands.

Criterion	Excellent (18-20)	Good (14-17)	Fair (10-13)	Weak (0-9)
Summary of core claims Accurate restatement before critiquing	Claims are restated accurately and concisely, separating the main claim from secondary ones.	Accurate, but misses some nuance.	Partly inaccurate, or too long for the time available.	Misrepresents the paper.
Methodological critique Data, design, validation, and missing controls	Specific, technical issues tied to sections, figures, or tables of the paper, prioritized by importance.	Valid and specific points, but not prioritized or partly superficial.	Mostly generic points ("the dataset is small").	Absent or incorrect.
Results and interpretation critique Do the results support the claims?	Clearly separates what is shown from what is claimed and tests whether the evidence supports each claim.	Identifies some gaps between evidence and claims.	Restates the results with little evaluation.	Absent.
Limitations, biases, and ethics Beyond what the authors state	Goes beyond the authors' own list with plausible, specific risks (generalization, bias, clinical, ethical).	Sound, but mostly repeats the authors' list.	Generic concerns not tied to this paper.	Absent.
Constructive suggestions Concrete, realistic improvements	Concrete, feasible experiments or analyses that would address the main critiques.	Reasonable suggestions, but vague.	Generic ("use more data").	None, or purely negative.

Critique the paper, not the presentation group. Show you understand the paper before critiquing it, and end constructively.

Use slides. A critique that points at a specific figure, table or section stays concrete; one delivered without slides tends to drift into general objections that could be made about any paper. Both groups upload their slides to Canvas by 12:00 PM on the day of the session.