1. Proposal number: 11 2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize? no 3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity of the proposal? 8 4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 8 Additional Comments and Questions * Overall, is the proposal clear, concise, and well-organized? This proposal is well structured and easy to read. Furthermore, the sections are clearly marked at the beginning (in the table of contents) and throughout the remainder of the proposal. That being said, this proposal didn’t seem to have a strong motivating focus. The introduction explained the inspiration for the project but the anecdote used did not evoke a feeling of merit for the reader. At the end of the paper, there are some long term extensions that are listed. Perhaps you could find a more relatable example of the long term extensions that would really grab the reader’s attention. In essence, you need to grab the reader in the introduction or the paper will be met with heavier skepticism. * Does the proposal meet the posted proposal guidelines? Yes, this proposal is consistent with the guidelines set forth for this project. * How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics? It is clear that this project squarely in the midst of the developmental robotics field. The self-detection aspect of the proposal is especially fitting for this field. An expansion of related work should focus on this aspect. * Describe what you like BEST about the project idea. For me, the self-detection aspect of this project seems to have the most merit in this proposal. Although it only has a brief mention in the related work, I believe that focusing on this would lead to more significant progress in the developmental robotics field. Self-detection is considered important for the field and needs to be explored with experiments such as the ones that are outlined in this proposal. * Describe what you like LEAST about the project idea. The proposed applications for this project don’t appear to be overly broad. In my experience, a good flashlight can illuminate an entire room and does not need to be focused on small things such as switches and buttons. As people, we use flashlights not to focus on the smallest space possible but instead to illuminate as much as possible. If a robot is used in a dark environment, it may make more sense to utilize a more powerful flashlight in lieu of training a robot to use an underpowered one. * Do you have any concerns about the project? Any particular concerns have been noted in other questions. My primary concern is the timeline that this group has proposed. With other coursework, it can be easy to ignore a long-term project. Members of this team need to figure out a way to stay on task as early as possible. For some students this is simple time management issue but for others it can be quite difficult. * Does it seem doable in the remaining time? Overall, this project appears to be doable in the remaining time. The project team has outlined their schedule for the project and it divides the necessary tasks fairly even across the remaining weeks. As long as this group can meet their own deadlines, this project should be completed by the end of the course. Note that the major time consuming activities will be gathering datasets from the robot and learning to use OpenCV. * Does it seem too difficult? For a graduate class, this project meets the necessary threshold of difficulty. However, after reading over the group qualifications, I think that this project may be quite ambitious given the skill set of the group. This is not to say that this project is too difficult for the group, but the project team needs to note that this is an ambitious timeline. * Are there any major details left out? Overall, the proposal appeared complete with major details filled in. Still, there were some smaller details left out which may reinforce the strength of the proposal. For instance, the proposal states in various places that algorithms will be developed for performing the self-detection of the robot. The reader of this proposal may wonder what exactly the algorithms are. Often, it can be difficult to state which software and algorithmic implementations you plan to use for the project. Nevertheless, proposals that have a clear concept and direction (including algorithms) often give the reader more interest in the project. Such an interest can generate insightful questions and criticisms that will ultimately lead to a refined piece of technical literature. Although this group may not have a clear formulation of their learning algorithms, it would be preferable to fill in details such as these whenever possible. * Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available? All technologies stated in this paper are widely available and freely distributed. No problem resulting from unavailable technology is foreseen. * Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Most of the suggestions have been stated in the answers to the previous questions. Overall, I appreciated the diagrams and figures interspersed throughout the proposal. They were well drawn and effectively communicated the proposal ideas in a clear manner. * Do you have any suggestions for related work that should be cited? The research team for this project will ultimately need to find additional sources for the final report. Papers in developmental psychology should be reviewed in an attempt to better explain the importance of self-detection. Much of developmental robotics is grounded in this research and the final report should reflect this. * Any other comments or suggestions? As a visual person, I found the timeline and algorithms diagrams to be extremely helpful. Although it may be possible to condense these down Overall, I was impressed the quality of this proposal especially from a team consisting entirely of freshman. I look forward to seeing how this project progresses throughout the semester.