1. Project number and Title

Project # 11 - Learning Manipulation of a Flashlight

2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? (yes/no)
	No

3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? (yes/no)
	No

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the project report? (1-10)
	9

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
	9

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research
contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results?  (1-10)
	10


* Overall, is the project report clear, concise, and well-organized?

Yes, this report details the setup, methodology, and results in a clear straight forward manner.  Each section is clearly labelled and the content within the section is appropriately placed.  Still, there were certain sections that needed to be more developed.  For instance, the summary of the paper clearly states the goal of this project.  It makes the claim that this research will focus on creating a method by which the robot can learn to use a flashlight.  This initial statement is clear enough for the introduction but in the evaluation it is not restated in more detail.  Instead, the report begins the evaluation section by enumerating each goal point.  I believe that this section of the report could be strengthened by reiterating the point made in the summary and then connecting it to the stated goals.  For the reader, the jump directly to the goals may be slightly unclear. 

* How does the project idea and methodology fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?

The idea for this project is to developmentally learn how to control a flashlight.  This is a project that could be implemented as a preprogrammed behavior but for this class was instead implemented using experimentation and learning algorithms.  Because of this novel approach, this project fits squarely within the framework of Developmental Robotics.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project?

In this project, I found two aspects that I particularly liked.  First, the researchers varied their setup to use three different flashlights and a total of six different shades of light.  I found this experimental variation to give this research a stronger foundation from which to draw conclusions.  The second aspect was the goal to have the robot self-detect control of the flashlight.  I think that this aspect shows the most potential for future work in this project.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project?

As stated in my proposal review, I believed that self-detection showed the most potential for this research.  In the report, it was stated that there was not enough time to accomplish self-detection and I would have liked to see it implemented.  However, the researchers had an ambitious timeline for this project and they were able to accomplish a great deal given their time available.  Additionally, I'm still not convinced of the practical benefits presented in the report.  This criticism echoes a similar statement that I made in my original review.

* Do the methods, results and contributions of the final project correspond to what was presented in the initial project proposal?

According to the final report, this project a direct implementation of the project proposal.  In the proposal, it was stated that the robot would perform a babbling behavior in order to allow the robot to learn the ability to use a flashlight.  Although a few aspects of the proposal were not implemented in the final project (due to time constraints), I believe that this project has stayed true to its original intent.  For that reason, I am stating that this project corresponds directly to the initial proposal.

* Are there any major details left out with regards to the methods, algorithms, or experimental design described in the report?

Although all of the major details are detailed in the report, I felt that there were a couple of points that could have been described in better detail.  For instance, I felt that the description of finding the joint positions for the arm was difficult to grasp from this writeup.  The way in which this project computed the actual arm positions for an image was not clearly described.

* Do the experimental results reported in the paper demonstrate success?

The stated for this proposal appeared to be quite broad in nature.  Therefore, the results presented in this report do fit within those stated goals.  However, the offline analysis of the data did not allow the robot to physically control the robot (as goal 2 could be interpreted).  Nevertheless, the team felt that they achieved two of the three success criterion and I agree with that interpretation.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement and future work?

My ideas for improvement have either been noted above or have been considered by the project group in their future work.  The real time implementation of this research is a particular improvement that I would like to see.

* How close is the final project report to being publishable as a conference or journal paper (consider the research papers that were part of the course reading)? What would it take to get there?

Right now, the results of this paper appear to be publishable but this paper would need major revisions before submission to a conference.  The related work section needs additional sources and there needs to be a stronger conclusion draw from this research.  Self-detection would also be something that needs to be emphasized in order to publish this paper.