Description
Background
In this mini-project the goal is to perform an image analysis prediction challenge. The task is based upon
the MNIST dataset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNIST_database). The original MNIST contains
handwritten numeric digits from 0-9 and the goal is to classify which digit is present in an image.
Here, you will be working with a Modified MNIST dataset that we have constructed. In this modified dataset,
the images contain three digits, and the goal is to output the digit in the image with the highest numeric
value. Each example is represented as a matrix of pixel intensity values (i.e., the images are grey-scale not
color). Examples of this task are shown in Figure 1. Note that this is a supervised classification task:
Every image has an associated label (i.e., the digit in the image with the highest numeric
value) and your goal is to predict this label.
1
Figure 1: Example images from the dataset. For example, the target label for the top-left image would be
7, while the target label for the bottom-right image would be 8.
Task
You must design and validate a supervised classification model to perform the Modified MNIST prediction
task. There are no restrictions on your model, except that it should be written in Python. As with the
previous mini-projects, you must write a report about your approach, so you should develop a coherent
validation pipeline and ideally provide justification/motivation for your design decisions. You are free to
develop a single model or to use an ensemble; there are no hard restrictions.
Deliverables
You must submit two separate files to MyCourses (using the exact filenames and file types outlined
below):
1. code.zip: A collection of .py, .ipynb, and other supporting code files. It must be possible for the
TAs to reproduce all the results in your report and your Kaggle leaderboard submissions
using your submitted code. Please submit a README detailing the packages you used and
providing instructions to replicate your results.
2. writeup.pdf: Your (max 5-page) project write-up as a pdf (details below).
Project write-up
Your team must submit a project write-up that is a maximum of five pages (single-spaced, 10pt font or larger;
extra pages for references/bibliographical content and appendices can be used). We highly recommend that
students use LaTeX to complete their write-ups, use the bibtex feature for citations, and follow the NeurIPS
style formatting (https://nips.cc/Conferences/2019/PaperInformation/StyleFiles). You are free
2
to structure the report how you see fit; below are general guidelines and recommendations, but this
is only a suggested structure and you may deviate from it as you see fit.
Abstract (100-250 words) Summarize the project task and your most important findings.
Introduction (5+ sentences) Summarize the project task, the dataset, and your most important findings. This should be similar to the abstract but more detailed.
Related work (4+ sentences) Summarize previous relevant literature.
Dataset and setup (3+ sentences) Very briefly describe the dataset/task and any basic data preprocessing methods. Note: You do not need to explicitly verify that the data satisfies the i.i.d. assumption
(or any of the other formal assumptions for linear classification).
Proposed approach (7+ sentences ) Briefly describe your model (or the different models you developed,
if there was more than one), providing citations as necessary. If you use or build upon an existing model
based on previously published work, it is essential that you properly cite and acknowledge
this previous work. Include any decisions about training/validation split, regularization strategies, any
optimization tricks, setting hyper-parameters, etc. It is not necessary to provide detailed derivations for the
model(s) you use, but you should provide at least few sentences of background (and motivation) for each
model.
Results (7+ sentences, possibly with figures or tables) Provide results for your approach (e.g.,
accuracy on the validation set, runtime). You should report your leaderboard test set accuracy in this
section, but most of your results should be on your validation set (or from cross validation).
Discussion and Conclusion (3+ sentences) Summarize the key takeaways from the project and possibly directions for future investigation.
Statement of Contributions (1-3 sentences) State the breakdown of the workload.
Evaluation
The mini-project is out of 100 points, and the evaluation breakdown is as follows:
• Performance (50 points)
– The performance of your models will be evaluated on the Kaggle competition. Your grade will
be computed based on your performance on a held-out test set. The grade computation is a
linear interpolation between the performance of a random baseline, a TA baseline, and the 3rd
best group in the class. The top three groups all receive full grades on the competition portion.
3
– Thus, if we let X denote your accuracy on the held-out test set, R denote the accuracy of the
random baseline, B denote the accuracy of the 3rd best group, and T denote the TA baseline,
your score
points = 50 ∗
0 if X < R
X−R
T −R
∗ 0.75 if X > R and X ≤ T
X−T
B−T
∗ 0.25 + 0.75 if X > T and X ≤ B
1 if X > B
The equation may look complicated, but the basic idea is as follows:
∗ The random baseline represents the score needed to get more than 0% on the competition,
the TA baseline represents the score needed to get 75% on the competition, and the 3rd best
performing group represents the score needed to get 100%.
∗ If your score is between the random baseline and the TA baseline, then your grade is a linear
interpolation between 0% and 75% on the competition.
∗ If your score is between the TA baseline and the 3rd-best group, then your grade is a linear
interpolation between 75% and 100% on the competition.
– In addition to the above, the top performing group will receive a bonus of 10 points.
• Quality of write-up and proposed methodology (50 points). As with the previous mini-projects your
write-up will be judged according its scientific quality (included but not limited to):
– Do you report on all the required experiments and comparisons?
– Is your proposed methodology technically sound?
– How detailed/rigorous/extensive are your experiments?
– Does your report clearly describe the task you are working on, the experimental set-up, results,
and figures (e.g., don’t forget axis labels and captions on figures, don’t forget to explain figures
in the text).
– Is your report well-organized and coherent?
– Is your report clear and free of grammatical errors and typos?
– Does your report include an adequate discussion of related work and citations?
Final remarks
You are expected to display initiative, creativity, scientific rigour, critical thinking, and good communication
skills. You don’t need to restrict yourself to the requirements listed above – feel free to go beyond, and
explore further.
You can discuss methods and technical issues with members of other teams, but you cannot share any code
or data with other teams. Any team found to cheat (e.g. use external information, use resources without
proper references) on either the code, predictions or written report will receive a score of 0 for all components
of the project.
Rules specific to the Kaggle competition:
• Don’t cheat! You must submit code that can reproduce the numbers of your leaderboard solution.
• Do not make more than one team for your group (e.g., to make more submissions). You will receive a
grade of 0 for intentionally creating new groups with the purpose of making more Kaggle submissions.
4
