Peer Evaluation Report
Peer Evaluator	FaridNabavi
Investigator	Shikha Sharma
Lab	Agent's Syntax Lab (Part A)
Course	CS 4180
Date	01 Nov 2008

Note: Not all of these sections will apply to every lab/assignment that you evaluate.

Preparation

• What did the investigator do to prepare for the lab?

Shikha had researched the topics covered in the lab to prepare her report. For example, row-major and column-major are topics that are not covered in Russell-Norvig book, so she had to research for that.

• See if you can come up with at least one specific suggestion to help them improve their preparation in the future.

It would be helpful to cite the outside sources for the material presented in the report; for example, I found the statement "Python Numeric array() function that uses internally C approach", in Shikha's report, to be very interesting and I'd like to learn more about it. References would help me to quickly access the background information.

• How about something that they did particularly well, and/or something you might not have thought about?

Python being new to me, I am interested to learn about all aspects of the language. Shikha's statement about the array() function was something that I had not looked into, so I found that to be an angle I had missed.

Narrative & Method

• Carefully review the investigator's narrative. Can you find any steps they might explain more clearly?

In the final section, agent's syntax, I found opportunities in improving some of the propositions; for example, Wumpus does not move, but the description of W[i][j] proposition states "Wumpus visiting the square[i][j]".

Additionally, I find the distinction between percepts and association of percepts with spaces a little confusing. This is really a general observation about this whole lab and not just Shikha's report.

When agent visits a square, its sensors pick up a list of percepts [Breeze, Stench, Glitter, Scream, Bump] (or None in any or all of these positions). But then, that square is also marked by that percept in the Knowledge base. In other words,

• • L[1,1] ∧ Breeze ⇒ B[1,1]

There are two proposition related to Breeze: the percept, and location. This is a distinction that I myself did not make in my report.

• Any steps they might have missed or errors they might have made?

• Interesting alternatives they might explore?

• If they are stuck somewhere, feel free to give them a hint. Don't give them the answer, but maybe a suggestion, or a resource you found useful.

Presentation

• Was there any of writing that you found particularly effective?

• If the investigator used charts, tables, and graphs to present their results, what one thing could the investigator do to make them more effective? What did you like best about them, and why?

• If the investigator did not use charts, tables, or graphs to present their results, suggest one way that they could to make their report more effective, and why it would make it more effective.

Exploratory skills

• Answers to reflective questions are supposed to help investigators integrate new knowledge gained in the lab, and link it to their existing knowledge. Give the investigator some feedback on how well they are doing so far, as well as some suggestions on how to improve.

Again this is also a note to myself, as I did not do it either... I wonder if as part of the agent's syntax we were meant to come up with some of the rules of the environment expressed in propositional logic. Consider the rule: agents can only move "forward" (the direction it is facing); how would we "phrase" something like that in propositional logic?

• Any other feedback you'd like to give to the investigator?