CprE 585X: Review for project 5
http://home.engineering.iastate.edu/~alexs/classes/2011_Spring_585X/final_projects/Wu_project.pdf

1. Project number and Title
5
Learning to Detect Doorbell Buttons and Broken
Ones on Portable Device by Haptic Exploration In An
Unsupervised Way and Real-time

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)

8

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

Yes, this paper has shown marked improvement since the project proposal stage. 

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

Perfectly. The robot utilized a learning approach to explore buttons on portable objects. This can be applicable for many tasks realted to the field.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project?

I like how simple and elegant the experiment was. I like the self-supervising, clustering approach utilized. This represents something really intersting in regards to natural exploration. 

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project?

The author could have spent more time connected the results to reality. For instance, how can the solution to this problem result in the solution to problems within Developmental Robotics or to the solutuion of other problems. I understand the connection, but this should be clarified prior to submission to an article or journal. Perhaps some connection to affordances could be made with clarity and continuity. 

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

No. I believe the proposal related to the detection of a zipper using haptic feedback. However, the method of feedback used here is not disimilar to that proposed originally and it is conceivable that the original problem could be approached using this framework.

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

Nothing major. The method, apparatus, algorithm and design were described and reported. The hypothesis could have been clarified and the intention of the experiment reiterated. 

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

Yes. Within 6 trials the robot was able to always, consistently, detect the presence of a button-press- this appears to confirm the hypothesis that a multi-modal approach utilizing haptic and auditory feedback will lead to the detection of button-presses on mobile objects. This hypothesis could have been more clearly stated. 

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

The graphs could be improved. They are difficult to read and take away from the quality of the results being reported. I suggest putting tables in an Appendix to aid readability and only inserting summary tables within the text itself. 

There are still instances where the language is not clear, but this has improved significantly from the proposal phase. 

* 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?

This paper could easily be submitted to a conference. It is difficult to say whether this is journal material since I am not familiar with the specific requirements for novelty that journals have within the field. If the author makes the changes above and the innovation represented in this paper is sufficient, it could be added to some sort of proceedings or, possibly, even a journal.