21DS799 Dissertation 2 - (M. Tech.

Data Science)
Evaluation Pattern
Component Assessments Marks
Review 1 – Panel Marks 10

Review 2 – Panel Marks 15

Internal Review 3 – Panel Marks 15

Guide Marks 30

External Review 4 – Panel Marks 30

Course Outcome
CO Description
CO1 Identify a valid research problem by conducting literature review in the
appropriate area.
CO2 Identify the appropriate methodology to solve the research problem.
CO3 Apply the tools & techniques to solve the identified problem.
CO4 Communicate scientific discoveries through peer-reviewed publications.

Slides Content Report

Reviews
Review 1 (Approval)  Project Title Abstract
 Problem Formulation /
(15th Feb 2025) Problem Statement
 Motivation
 Literature Survey
 Research Gap
 Expected Outcome
 Base Papers & Data Set (if
any)
 References
Review 2 (System Design  Project Title (Plagiarism < 10%)
/Methodology and Partial  Problem Formulation /  Project Title
Implementation) Problem Statement  Abstract
 Motivation  Problem Statement
th
(15 March 2025)  Literature Survey  Literature Survey
 Research Gap  Research Gap
 Objectives  Objectives
 Proposed Methodology  System Model
 Architectural Diagram /  First Part Implementation
System Design Details
 Identification of Algorithm,
applications, tools.
 First Part Implementation
 References
 Review 3  Project Title (Plagiarism < 10%)
 Problem Formulation /  Project Title
Problem Statement  Abstract
( 19th April 2025)  Motivation  Problem Statement
 Literature Survey  Literature Survey
 Research Gap  Research Gap
 Objectives  Objectives
 Proposed Methodology  System Model
 Architectural Diagram /  Explanation and
System Design implementation of each
 Brief explanation and module.
implementation of each  Results
module  References
 Results
 References

 Project Title (Plagiarism < 10%)

 Problem Formulation /  Project Title
Problem Statement  Abstract
 Motivation  Problem Statement
Final External Review  Literature Survey  Literature Survey
 Research Gap  Research Gap
 Objectives  Objectives
 Proposed Methodology  System Model
 Architectural Diagram /  Explanation and
System Design implementation of each &
 Brief explanation and every module.
implementation of each  Results
module  Evaluation Parameters,
 Results Analysis
 Evaluation Parameters,  Conclusion
Analysis  Publication Details
 Conclusion  References
 Publication Details
 References

Evaluation:
Internal Panel Review - 40%
Project Guide / Advisor – 30%
External Panel Review – 30%
Rubrics for Reviews
Review 1 – Panel Marks (Literature Survey & Research Gap, Q & A)
Description CO Marks Rubrics
Problem Formulation CO1 0 Has not clearly identified the problem / need for
(2 Marks ) solving the problem
1 Has a basic understanding of the problem but needs
more clarity
2 Has good clarity of the problem and need for solving
the problem
Literature Survey and CO1 0 - 1 Not identified the relevant papers
Research Gap 2 -3 Has a basic understanding of existing techniques and
(4 Marks) need for solving the problem.
4 Has good clarity in understanding the existing
techniques and need for solving the problem
CO1 0-1 Could not answer any of the questions
Q&A 2-3 Made an attempt to answer the question
(4 Marks) 4 Have an in-depth idea about the question asked

Review 2 – Panel Marks (Detailed Literature Survey, Design of the Proposed System,
Partial Implementation)
Description CO Marks Rubrics
CO1 1 Not identified the relevant papers
Detailed 2-3 Has a basic understanding of existing techniques and need
Literature Survey for solving the problem.
(4 Marks) 4 Has good clarity in understanding the existing techniques
and need for solving the problem
CO2 1 Design specification and novelty in solution not very clearly
Design identified.
Specification & 2-3 Design Specification and novelty in solutions have been
Novelty in the identified but latest technology /improvements yet to be
proposed system explored.
(4 Marks) 4 Design Specification and novelty in solution has been
identified and stated clearly. Comparative analysis is done
with existing techniques.
CO3 0 - 2 Not specified the algorithm with its principles or selection
clearly / Lacks understanding of the working principles of
the algorithm. Not implemented
Partial 3-4 Identified the algorithm and needed better understanding
Implementation of the working principles of the algorithm and justification
(7 Marks) for selection. Partly implemented the requirements.
5-7 Has a clear understanding of the algorithms with their
principles and justification for selection. Done
implementation for few algorithms
Review 3 – Panel Marks (Implementation, Individual Contribution and Presentation,
Results)
Description Marks Rubrics
CO4 1 - 2 The implementation is incorrect, incomplete, or does
not align with the proposed methodology.

The implementation is inefficient, with significant

performance issues or redundant computations.

The implementation is not tested, or test cases are

insufficient/inappropriate.
3-5 The implementation is partially functional with minor
errors but follows the proposed approach.
Implementation of
The implementation is functional but has scope for
the Proposed
optimization in terms of execution time or resource
Algorithm /
usage.
Methodology
(8 Marks)
The implementation is tested but lacks comprehensive
validation or proper documentation of results.
6-8 The implementation is fully functional, correctly
follows the proposed algorithm/methodology, and
produces accurate results.

The implementation is optimized for efficiency, using

appropriate data structures and minimizing
computational complexity.

CO4 0 - 1 The project lacks originality and is a direct replication

of existing solutions.
Novelty 2 The project clearly differentiates itself from existing
(3 Marks) solutions with evidence of uniqueness.
3 The project introduces a new idea, approach, or
significant improvement over existing solutions.
CO4 1 The results are incorrect, irrelevant, or do not align
with the objectives. No proper analysis or
explanation. The results contradict the
methodology or appear
inconsistent.
2-3 The results are somewhat relevant but have minor
Result & Inference inaccuracies or inconsistencies. The results are well-
(4 Marks) analysed with meaningful insights and explanations.
The results align logically with the chosen
methodology and validate the approach.
4 The results are accurate, relevant, and align with the
project objectives. The results are well-analysed with
meaningful insights and explanations.
The results align logically with the chosen
methodology and validate the approach.
FINAL EXTERNAL REVIEW – Panel Marks (Implementation, Validation of
Results/Testing, Individual Contribution and Presentation, Publication)
Description CO Marks Rubrics
CO3 1 - 3 The implementation is incorrect, incomplete, or does
not align with the proposed methodology.

The implementation is inefficient, with significant

performance issues or redundant computations.

The implementation is not tested, or test cases are

insufficient/inappropriate.
4-6 The implementation is partially functional with minor
errors but follows the proposed approach.

The implementation is functional but has scope for

Implementation
optimization in terms of execution time or resource
(10 Marks)
usage.

The implementation is tested but lacks comprehensive

validation or proper documentation of results.
7 - 10 The implementation is fully functional, correctly
follows the proposed algorithm/methodology, and
produces accurate results.

The implementation is optimized for efficiency, using

appropriate data structures and minimizing
computational complexity.

CO3 1 The implementation is not tested, or test cases are

insufficient/inappropriate.
Validation of Result / 2–3 The implementation is tested but lacks comprehensive
Testing (5 Marks) validation or proper documentation of results.
4-5 The project introduces a new idea, approach, or
significant improvement over existing solutions.
CO4 1 The presentation is disorganized and unclear. The
presenter is unclear, lacks confidence, and struggles
to communicate. The presenter is unable to
answer
questions or provides unclear responses.
Presentation & 2-3 The presentation is mostly clear, with minor lapses in
Communication organization or coherence. The presenter is mostly
Skills confident but has occasional hesitations or lacks
(5 Marks) engagement. Slides/visuals are used but contain
minor design flaws or too much information. The
presenter
answers most questions well
4-5 The presentation is well-structured, follows a logical
flow, and ideas are clearly conveyed. Slides/visuals
are clear, well-designed, and effectively support
 the
presentation. The presenter answers questions
confidently and accurately, demonstrating a strong
grasp of the topic.
CO4 1 - 2 Not Ready with the draft.
3-6 Partial draft is ready and identified the conference /
Publication
journal
(10 Marks)
7 - 10 Draft Ready. Identified the conference / Journal -
Submitted / Accepted / Published.

Project Guide / Advisor Marks – 30%

The advisor will assign marks to the students before the final external review.
Rubrics: Apart from the rubrics specified in the below given table, the following
parameters will also be viewed by the guide for awarding the marks
Regularity in meeting / communicating with the guide and updating the guide regarding the
work progress
Implementation carried out to the satisfaction of the guide as per the suggestion given by the
guide and achievement of expected results
Publication or Patent – Under Progress / Submitted / Presented / Published to the satisfaction
of the guide.
Description CO Marks Rubrics
Literature Survey CO1 0 Not identified the relevant papers
1 - 3 Has made effort to make basic understanding of
( 6 Marks) existing techniques and need for solving the
problem.
4 - 6 Has made considerably good effort in
understanding the existing techniques and need for
solving the problem
CO2 1 Design specification and novelty in solution not very
clearly identified.
Design of the 2-3 Design Specification and novelty in solutions have
Proposed System been identified but latest technology
(4 Marks) /improvements yet to be explored.
4 Design Specification and novelty in solutions have
been identified and stated clearly. Comparative
analysis is done with existing techniques.

CO3 0–2 No adequate progress in the work

Implementation
3–6 Progress is slow
(10 Marks)
7 - 10 Good Progress
CO4 0–2 No effort to make the right flow of ppt content and
Report
Slide and Report 3–6 Satisfactory effort is put for a clear presentation of
Preparation work with respect to ppt and report, with minor
(10 Marks) lapses in organization or coherence.

7 - 10 Good effort is put for a clear presentation of work

with respect to ppt and report, The presentation
and Report is well-structured, follows a logical
flow, and ideas are clearly conveyed.

Dr. Gopalakrishnan E. A.
Principal & Head,
Amrita School of Computing &
Amrita School of Artificial Intelligence,
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bengaluru.