Proposal 13: Dropping Disks on Pegs

The proposal should not be consider for the Best Proposal Prize.  On a scale of 1 to 10 for clarity the proposal rates a 6.  On a scale of 1 to 10 the actual project idea rates a
7.

Overall, is the proposal clear, concise, and well-organized?
The proposal feels very informal and somewhat rough.  The items that stick out the most are the extensive use of first person, a somewhat weak organization, missing or misaligned
figures, and sections that feel half written.  Formal writing should really lean towards the use of third person.  The organization seems haphazard.  There doesn’t seem to be any
flow between the sections.  The sections headers while present do not really feel all that useful.  In some cases they feel long winded “Related Work and Other Attempts” and in
others extremely informal “Me”.   The proposal does a good job of providing many figures and diagrams, however their size and location makes feel like their primary purpose is to
take up space and not necessarily provide additional clarity.  The image associated with Figure 3 seems to be missing from the proposal and Figure 4 is misplaced such that it runs
passed the boundaries of the page.  Several of the paragraphs feel incomplete in that they do not fully describe what it is they are trying to explain.  This is most noticeable in
the introduction and the related work sections.

Does the proposal meet the posted proposal guidelines?
The proposal meets most of the posted proposal guidelines.  The target audience seems to be missing and the demonstrated need should be expanded to create a more solid case such
as providing solid examples of household activities that involve placing things on pegs.  The previous work section seems to stop short.  It almost feels like the description
should go one level deeper into how the system was implemented.  For example what type of robot was used and a high level overview of the algorithm that was used that shows it as
clearly as being preprogramed.  Adam does not really sell himself as being capable of completing this project.  The proposal does not meet the length requirements even with the
oversized figures that were described in the paragraph above.

How does the project idea fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
The proposal seems to fit within the framework of developmental robotics especially since the main concept is to allow a robot to learn how to place discs on pegs.

Describe what you like BEST about the project idea.
Developing am algorithm that allows a robot to learn how to place a disc on a peg is a great idea.  The approach if done right can help to open the door to more advance behavior
and go long way in terms of pushing developmental robotics forward.

Describe what you like LEAST about the project idea.
The project almost feels too simple and under challenging.  Is it really that hard to teach a robot how to place disc on a peg.  The answer will probably turn out to be yes, but
even so it would have been nice if Adam left the door open for further challenges such as placing the disc on multiple pegs or pegs that required rotating the disc in order to get
it to slide down.

Do you have any concerns about the project?
Two concerns can be identified with this project: Use of Robot and OpenCV.  The use of the Robot with not prior experience may prove to be difficult.  Adam has done a good job of
limiting the amount of required functionality to being able to drop a disc and push the peg.  Choosing to hand the disc to the robot rather than having it pick it up was
definitely a smart choice.  OpenCV can be quite daunting with first used.  This is only going to be worse with limited c/c++ experience.

Does it seem doable in the remaining time?
The project defined in the proposal looks to be doable is the remaining time.   The project itself is relatively simple in nature and Adam has already completely a lot of the
preliminary setup.  This leaves just the core implementation and the testing remaining to be accomplished in the next month a half.  The timeline

Does it seem too difficult?
The project seems rather simple and appears to be accomplishable by a single person in one semester provide they have sufficient experience with the required tools and libraries. 
Unfortunately, Adam Campbell has limited experience with programming let alone with the tools he will be using.  This means the project is likely to be very difficult for him.

Are there any major details left out?
The project seems to provide most of the major details, though it does provoke a couple of questions.  How is the location the disc is dropped from defined? What color is the
table?  What happens if the disc should roll of the table?  How is the data from testing combined with the original data?

Does the idea rely upon technologies that are not currently available?
The proposal seems reasonable and for the most part utilizes technologies that are readily available.  This is especially true for the discs, pegs, and webcam.  While technically
the robot itself is not readily available it is reasonable for a student taking developmental robotics to expect to have at least limit access to the one in the lab.    It is
worth pointing out that many teams are planning to the use the robot and therefore Adam may find himself fighting over a scarse resource.

Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Addressing the issues identified in this review would go a long way towards improving the proposed project.  It would be interesting to know how aiming for areas if least
certainty is meant to improve upon the final success.  Does this have something to do with finding the optimum probability?  If so would it be beneficial to compare the results of
the multi-stage approach compared to a more refined search that explores using a known optimization technique like newton’s method or particle swarm optimization.

Do you have any suggestions for related work that should be cited?
The work by Griffith and Stoytchev should be included in the related works section and the algorithm they use for determining how many objects have moved should be detailed enough
that it makes sense when referenced later in the paper.

Any other comments or suggestions?
To steal a line from a movie “Keep moving forward”.  Do not let this review or any other review discourage you.  The objective is not to tear your idea a part, but to show how it
might be improved and give you pointers that you can apply now and in the future.