Problem-Solving and Decision-Making (ICT5357) T1 Assignment Help
Assessment Brief: ICT5357 Problem-Solving and Decision-Making with Machine Learning Trimester 1, 2025
Assessment Overview
|
Assessment Task
|
Type
|
Weight
ing
|
Length
|
Due
|
ULOs
Asses
sed
|
|
Assessment 1: Supervised Machine Learning Project
Implement a machine learning model to perform a simple
classification or regression task. Write a report outlining steps taken.
|
Individual

|
20%
|
1000 (500
words for
report + 500 words for
model)
|
Week 4
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 2: Laboratory
Practicum
Regular invigilated practical tests, implementing some machine learning model or machine learning analysis to solve a problem.
|
Individual

Invigilated

|
30%
|
2000 words (1200
words for
report +
800 words
for model)
|
Weeks
6, 8
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 3: Unsupervised Machine Learning Project
Perform clustering and
dimensionality reduction on a complex dataset and implement a machine learning model to perform a classification/regression task on the reduced dataset. Write a report outlining steps taken.
|
Group

|
25%
|
3000 words (2000
words for
report +
1000 words for model)
|
Week 7
|
ULO1
ULO3
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 4: Computer Vision Case Study
Apply strategic problem-solving in a domain involving visual data analysis. Write a report outlining steps taken.
|
Individual

|
25%
|
2500 words (1500 words for report + 1000 words for model)
|
Week
12
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO4
|
equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.
Note for all assessments tasks:
● Students can generate/modify/create text generated by AI. They are then asked to modify the text according to the brief of the assignment.
● During the preparation and writing of an assignment, students use AI tools, but may not include any AI-generated material in their final report.
● AI tools are used by students in researching topics and preparing assignments, but all AI-generated content
must be acknowledged in the final report as follows:
|
Format
|
|
I acknowledge the use of [insert the name of AI system and link] to [describe how it was used]. The prompts used were entered on [enter the date in ddmmyyy:] [list the prompts that were used]
|
|
Example
|
|
Tools
I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT to create content to plan and brainstorm ideas for my assessment. The prompts used were entered on 18 March, 2023:
● What are some key challenges in running an online business?
|
Assessment 1: Supervised Machine Learning Project
|
Due date:
|
Week 4
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1000 (500 words for report + 500 words for model)
|
|
Weighting:
|
20%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-4
|
Assessment 1 Detail
You will be provided with a number of simple raw datasets that could be used for classification or regression. You will choose one dataset and submit a report that outlines:
● A problem that could be addressed with the dataset
● A machine learning algorithm that could be used to train AI to answer this question
● Any preprocessing of data and other preparation that you would do for this training
You will also submit one or more models trained with the data. You are required to submit:
1. A document (1000 words) that includes:
○ What kind of problem could be solved and/or what kind of decisions could be made, if an appropriate machine learning model were trained on this dataset ○ What such a model would do, either as a classification task or a regression task
○ An explanation of how the dataset relates to the classification or regression task
○ Any specific learning algorithms that might be particularly suitable or unsuitable, given the dataset, and why
○ What preprocessing would you perform on the dataset, prior to machine learning
○ An evaluation of the performance of the model
2. The project used to develop your model(s).
3. The deployed model(s)
Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark.
|
Marking
Criteria
|
Not satisfactory
(0-49%) of the criterion mark
|
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the
criterion mark
|
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
|
Very Good
(75-84%) of the
criterion mark
|
Excellent
(85-100%) of the
criterion mark
|
|
Problem
Solving
(20 marks)
|
Unable to identify and connect problems to machine learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect some
problems to
machine learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect many problems to
machine learning models and
training data.
|
Able to identify and connect problems to machine learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect problems to machine learning models and training
data, and provide clear explanations for these connections.
|
|
Data
(20 marks)
|
Explanation of the dataset is missing or contains significant inaccuracies. No modifications or pre processing are
performed, or
explanations are
unclear.
|
Dataset is
described with
basic details but lacks clarity or
depth. Basic
modifications or pre-processing steps are
mentioned, but their rationale is unclear.
|
Explanation
provides a clear overview of the dataset, including features, target variable, and
relevance to the task. Modifications or pre-processing are adequately explained and
justified.
|
Explanation is
thorough and
demonstrates a strong grasp of dataset
characteristics and relevance.
Modifications or pre-processing are well-reasoned and effectively
contribute to model development.
|
Explanation is
exceptional, offering detailed insights into features, target
variable, and
dataset’s role in the task. Modifications or pre- processing are exceptional, showing deep understanding of their impact on the task.
|
|
Machine
Learning (20 marks)
|
Inappropriate
algorithms or
hyperparameters are chosen, or
explanations are
missing.
|
Basic algorithms are chosen, but their suitability and hyperparameters are inadequately explained.
|
Appropriate
algorithms are
selected,
relevance to the task is justified with reasonable hyperparameters.
|
Algorithms are well suited to the task, and
hyperparameters are carefully tuned with clear
reasoning.
|
Algorithm selection and hyperparameter tuning are
exceptional, showing deep understanding of model choices.
|
|
Models (20
marks)
|
No model results provided or results do not address the
problem.
|
Basic model results are mentioned but lack context or
interpretation.
|
Provides some meaningful
insights, and
results are
described clearly.
|
Model outcomes are explained with insight, their
implications are well interpreted.
|
Model performance is explained clearly, interpretation shows deep understanding.
|
|
Clarity and
Presentation (20 marks)
|
Answers are unclear, disorganised, and difficult to understand.
|
Answers are
somewhat clear, but lack
organisation.
|
Answers are
mostly clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised, easy to understand, and engaging or
insightful.
|
Assessment 2: Laboratory Practicum
|
Due date:
|
Weeks 6, 8
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
2000 words (1200 words for report + 800 words for model), 1000 words each
|
|
Weighting:
|
2x 15% = 30%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4
|
Assessment 2 Detail
During one hour of the weekly seminar in Weeks 6 and 8, you will be provided with some problem or decision that can be addressed with an appropriate machine learning approach. You will be required to provide written answers, and in some weeks you will also be required to provide one or more machine learning models to address the problem.
These assessments are held during two relevant weekly seminar and they are invigilated.
Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Each assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark, totalling a combined weight of 2 x 15% = 30%.
|
Marking
Criteria
|
Not satisfactory (0- 49%) of the criterion mark
|
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
|
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
|
Very Good
(75-84%) of the
criterion mark
|
Excellent
(85-100%) of the
criterion mark
|
|
Problem
Solving (25 marks)
|
Unable to identify and connect
problems to machine learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect
some problems to machine
learning models and training
data.
|
Able to identify and connect
many problems to machine learning models and
training data.
|
Able to identify and connect problems to machine
learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect problems to machine learning models and training data, and provide clear explanations for these connections.
|
|
Data and
Machine
Learning (25 marks)
|
No relevant data preprocessing, data visualisations,
clustering,
dimensionality
reduction or time series techniques are used.
|
Some relevant data
preprocessing, data
visualisations, clustering,
dimensionality reduction or time series
techniques, but submission
contains errors
|
All/most relevant data
preprocessing, data
visualisations, clustering,
dimensionality reduction or time series techniques are used and
explained.
|
All relevant data preprocessing, data visualisations, clustering,
dimensionality
reduction or time series techniques are used and
explained well.
|
All relevant data
preprocessing, data visualisations,
clustering,
dimensionality
reduction or time series techniques are used and explained with excellent insight.
|
|
|
or omissions in explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange /
AutoML
techniques
(25 marks)
|
Machine learning project is
disorganised and difficult to follow.
|
Machine learning project achieves goals but with little
organisation.
|
Machine learning project is
somewhat
organised but contains one or more errors in the workflow.
|
Machine learning project is well
organised and
easy to follow.
|
Machine learning project is
exceptionally
organised with a
logical workflow.
|
|
Clarity and Presentation (25 marks)
|
Answers are
unclear,
disorganised, and difficult to
understand.
|
Answers are
somewhat clear, but lack
organisation.
|
Answers are
mostly clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised, easy to understand, and engaging or insightful.
|
Assessment 3: Unsupervised Machine Learning Project
|
Due date:
|
Week 7
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Group
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
3000 words (2000 words for report + 1000 words for model)
|
|
Weighting:
|
25%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO3, and ULO4
|
Assessment 3 Detail
You will be provided with a number of complex high-dimensional raw data sets. You will choose one of these datasets and submit a report that outlines:
● A problem that could be addressed with the dataset
● How methods could be used to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset and uncover structure in the dataset
● What kind of classification or regression could be performed with the data once the complexity in the dataset has been reduced
You will also submit several models that have been trained with the data, including:
● A model trained on the raw dataset
● A model trained on the dataset after applying some dimensionality reduction techniques
● A model trained on the dataset after manually choosing a selection of input features in the training dataset
You are required to submit:
1. A document (3000 words) that includes:
○ What kind of problem could be solved and/or what kind of decisions could be made, if an appropriate machine learning model were trained on this dataset
○ What such a model would do, either as a classification task or a regression task ○ An explanation of how the dataset relates to the classification or regression task ○ Insights gained from the raw data, including from visualisations of the data ○ An explanation of any dimensionality reduction techniques that could be used to reduce the complexity of the raw data
○ Any specific learning algorithms that might be particularly suitable or unsuitable, given the dataset, and why
○ What preprocessing would you perform on the dataset, prior to machine learning ○ An evaluation of the performance of the models
2. The project used to develop your models.
3. The deployed models.
Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark.
|
Marking
Criteria
|
Not satisfactory (0- 49%) of the criterion mark
|
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
|
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
|
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark
|
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark
|
|
Problem
Solving (10
marks)
|
Unable to identify and connect
problems to machine learning models and training data.
|
Able to identify and connect some problems to
machine learning models and
training data.
|
Able to identify and connect many problems to
machine learning models and
training data.
|
Able to identify and connect
problems to
machine learning models and
training data.
|
Able to identify and connect
problems to
machine learning models and
training data, and provide clear
explanations for these
connections.
|
|
Data (10
marks)
|
Explanation of the dataset is missing or contains significant inaccuracies. No modifications or pre processing are
performed, or
explanations are unclear.
|
Dataset is
described with basic details but lacks clarity or depth. Basic
modifications or pre-processing steps are
mentioned, but their rationale is unclear.
|
Explanation
provides a clear overview of the dataset, including features, target variable, and
relevance to the task. Modifications or pre-processing are adequately explained and
justified.
|
Explanation is
thorough and
demonstrates a strong grasp of dataset
characteristics and relevance. Modifications or pre-processing are well-reasoned and effectively contribute to
model
development.
|
Explanation is
exceptional,
offering detailed insights into
features, target variable, and
dataset’s role in the task.
Modifications or pre- processing are exceptional, showing deep
understanding of their impact on the task.
|
|
Data
Visualisation (15 marks)
|
Creates little or no visualisations of data, and/or offers no explanation or understanding of their significance.
|
Creates
visualisations of data, but offers on limited explanation of how these
visualisations
connect to insights into the problem.
|
Creates relevant visualisations of data. Presents some insights
based on these visualisations.
|
Creates relevant and helpful
visualisations of data. Presents good insights
based on these visualisations.
|
Clearly explains how visualisations of data connect to insights into the problem space.
|
|
Dimensionality Reduction (15 marks)
|
No dimensionality reduction techniques are used and/or no rationale given for these.
|
Some
dimensionality reduction
techniques are used. Little
rationale given for these.
|
Explains some dimensionality reduction
techniques used and offers some rationale for these. Shows some
insight into
dimensionality reduction.
|
Explains
dimensionality reduction
techniques used and the rationale for these. Shows good insight into
dimensionality reduction.
|
Clearly explains dimensionality reduction
techniques used and the rationale for these. Shows excellent insight
into dimensionality reduction.
|
|
Machine
Learning (10 marks)
|
Inappropriate
algorithms or
hyperparameters are chosen, or
explanations are missing.
|
Basic algorithms are chosen, but their suitability and hyperparameters are inadequately explained.
|
Appropriate
algorithms are
selected,
relevance to the task is justified with reasonable hyperparameters.
|
Algorithms are well-suited to the task, and
hyperparameters are carefully tuned with clear
reasoning.
|
Algorithm
selection and
hyperparameter tuning are
exceptional,
showing deep
understanding of model choices.
|
|
Models (10
marks)
|
No model results provided or results do not address the problem.
|
Basic model
results are
mentioned but lack context or interpretation.
|
Provides some meaningful
insights, and
results are
described clearly.
|
Model outcomes are explained with insight, their
implications are well interpreted.
|
Model
performance is explained clearly, interpretation
shows deep
understanding.
|
|
Orange /
AutoML
techniques (15 marks)
|
Machine learning project is
disorganised and difficult to follow.
|
Machine learning project achieves goals but with little organisation.
|
Machine learning project is
somewhat
organised but
contains one or more errors in the workflow.
|
Machine learning project is well
organised and easy to follow.
|
Machine learning project is
exceptionally
organised with a logical workflow.
|
|
Clarity and
Presentation (15 marks)
|
Answers are
unclear,
disorganised, and difficult to
understand.
|
Answers are
somewhat clear, but lack
organisation.
|
Answers are
mostly clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised, easy to
understand, and engaging or
insightful.
|
Assessment 4: Computer Vision Case Study
|
Due date:
|
Week 12
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
2500 words (1500 words for report + 1000 words for model)
|
|
Weighting:
|
25%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4
|
Assessment 4 Detail
You will be provided with a number of image libraries. You will choose one image library and submit a report that outlines:
● A problem that could be solved with the image dataset
● How AutoML tools may help to analyse the imagery
● A strategy to solve the problem with the image library and an appropriate machine learning model
You will also submit one or more models that you have trained. You are required to submit:
1. A document (2000 words) that includes:
○ A realistic fictional scenario in which the image library could help solve a problem
○ An outline of a strategic approach to solving the problem with the use of the image library and a machine learning model trained from it
○ Explorations and insights gained from the image library
○ Image preprocessing used on the data, including any advanced pre-processing that might be conducted with access to advanced AutoML tools
○ An evaluation of the performance of any models
2. The project used to develop your model(s).
3. The deployed model(s).
Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark.
|
Marking
Criteria
|
Not satisfactory (0- 49%) of the criterion mark
|
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
|
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
|
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark
|
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark
|
|
Strategic
Problem
Solving (20
marks)
|
No relevant scenario or problem domain is identified. No relevant machine learning objective is identified or
explained.
|
Some
identification of the scenario and problem domain. An objective of the machine learning project is
identified, but not explained.
|
Adequate
explanation of the scenario and
problem domain. An objective of the machine learning project is
identified, but may not be well
|
Good explanation of the scenario and problem
domain. An
appropriate
machine learning project objective is identified and
explained.
|
Excellent
explanation of the scenario and
problem domain, and the objective of the machine learning project.
|
|
|
|
explained.
|
|
|
|
Data (20
marks)
|
Does not explain how the image
library connects to the machine learning objective.
|
Able to somewhat explain the
connection
between the
image library and the objective of the machine
learning project, but no mention of how further data should be
collected or
augmented.
|
Able to somewhat explain the
connection
between the
image library and the objective of the machine learning project. Shows little knowledge of how further data should be
collected or
augmented.
|
Able to explain the connection
between the
image library and the objective of the machine
learning project. Shows some
knowledge of how further data
should be
collected or
augmented.
|
Able to clearly explain the
connection
between the
image library and the objective of the machine
learning project. Shows great
insight into how further data
should be
collected or
augmented.
|
|
Image
Processing (20 marks)
|
No image pre
processing is
performed.
|
Basic image pre processing is
performed, but with no
explanation.
|
Image pre
processing is
mostly appropriate to the task, but with little
explanation. More advanced image pre-processing is mentioned but not explained.
|
Image pre
processing is
performed and adequately
explained. More advanced image pre-processing is adequately
explained in
relation to AutoML tools.
|
Image pre
processing is
completely
appropriate and clearly explained, showing deep
understanding of its role in image analysis. More advanced image pre-processing is clearly explained in relation to
AutoML tools.
|
|
Models (10
marks)
|
No model results provided or results do not address the problem.
|
Basic model
results are
mentioned but lack context or interpretation.
|
Provides some meaningful
insights, and
results are
described clearly.
|
Model outcomes are explained with insight, their
implications are well interpreted.
|
Model
performance is explained clearly, interpretation
shows deep
understanding.
|
|
Orange /
AutoML
techniques (15 marks)
|
Machine learning project is
disorganised and difficult to follow.
|
Machine learning project achieves goals but with little organisation.
|
Machine learning project is
somewhat
organised but
contains one or more errors in the workflow.
|
Machine learning project is well
organised and easy to follow.
|
Machine learning project is
exceptionally
organised with a logical workflow.
|
|
Clarity and
Presentation (15 marks)
|
Answers are
unclear,
disorganised, and difficult to
understand.
|
Answers are
somewhat clear, but lack
organisation.
|
Answers are
mostly clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised.
|
Answers are clear and organised, easy to
understand, and engaging or
insightful.
|
Leave A Comment