\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}
\usepackage[leftcaption]{sidecap}
\usepackage{subfigure} % figures can have sub chunks
\usepackage{geometry} % this maxes page usage, making the below unnecessary
\textwidth = 6.75in
\oddsidemargin = -0.25in
\textheight = 10in
\topmargin = -0.5in
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\lhead{{\it J. J. Bryson }}
\chead{Wall Following LEGO Robots}
\rhead{Coursework 1}
\lfoot{}
\cfoot{\thepage}
\rfoot{}

\newcommand{\goodgap}{%
 \hspace{\subfigtopskip}%
 \hspace{\subfigbottomskip}}

\title{Coursework 1:  Wall Following with a LEGO Robot}
\author{Joanna J. Bryson}


\begin{document}
\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
All of your courseworks are designed primarily to give you experience
in developing intelligent control and/or cognitive systems.  However,
the course is also intended to give you experience and feedback in
writing about research.  To this end, this coursework will take the
form of a research reports of about two pages, using exactly this
format.

The Introduction of a research report should most importantly state
\textbf{a hypothesis} that you will test. It should also summarise the
outcome---science is about communication, not mystery.  The introduction 
should also explain briefly the \textbf{motivation}---the reason you
thought the hypothesis was worth testing. This may include a {\em
  brief} background argument, possibly citing a paper or two. For
coursework~1, one of the paper will likely be
\citet{BrooksAIJ91}, since the course steers you towards a reactive
approach, so whether you go towards or away from that steer you should
still address it.

Coursework~1 requires you to construct a robot capable of circumnavigating
rooms or other closed spaces (don't worry about doorways---just block them.)  Ideally this should work in ``natural'' (unaltered)
indoor environments with a variety of obstacles along the walls, but
often people build up some barriers.   However, the report should {\em
  not}
be a narrative on the experience of building a robot. It
should present a single hypothesis you tested on your completed robot
about how to improve its intelligence.

For Coursework~1, your group should list all the members and what they
contributed to the report and its outcome. You should also:
\begin {itemize} 
\item either state
clearly that all three members are happy to be judged as having
contributed equally, with all three signing next this statement, or
\item (exceptionally) ask to discuss how the mark should
  be allocated with one of the lecturers.
\end{itemize}

\section{Approach}

The approach describes in the procedure you followed for your
experiments testing the hypothesis.   The approach should be in sufficient detail
that another person could replicate your experiments and get similar
results.  You may cite
other papers here too if you are taking an approach from another
paper, or modifying it only slightly.

Submissions should be in PDF or HTML, preferably derived from this
latex format, certainly in 12 point font.  If you use HTML, we recommend 
using latex plus htlatex, but you can construct your report using any
tool you please.  Note that this specification is exactly 2~pages
long, so an HTML report should be no longer than this.
Figures (both drawn plans and photos) are encouraged for marks and
clarity and {\em do not count either for or against page length}.  The
1--2 pages are counting text only (not citations).  
Remember, don't spend too much
time on this coursework!  You should spend about 19 hours total on
each coursework, about 4 of which will be writing up.  The coursework
should be uploaded to Moodle by {\bf 1pm (lunch time) on Thursday 28 February} at the
latest, but feel free to submit it sooner.

For Coursework~1, it is quite likely that you will not have initially
thought of a hypothesis to test, but will rather just have tried to
make the robot work.  However, in your exploration (both with the
robot and with your reading) you should always be looking to something
that seems to make a difference in performance, and then try to
capture what that something is.  Can you describe it exactly?  Can you
replicate it with different robot configurations?  Can you quantify
how much improvement you get given how much change you make to some
parameter on the robot?  Don't forget to consider things such as the
battery charge, operating in daylight, or proximity to other
sonar-using robots as possible explanations for strange behaviour.

Further hints (if you can't think of anything based on the above):  you may want to 
contrast ``before and after'' the addition of extra control
algorithms,  or changes to the physical shape of the robot,  or trying different target
sonar readings for maintaining a particular distance from the wall in
a variety of contexts. The effects of such changes can be quantified in terms of 
the circuit time for the robot, the success rate, or any other metric
you can think of. 


\section{Results}

The results section describes the outcomes.  This should be purely
factual descriptions, including qualitative outcomes, quantitative
outcomes and possibly statistics.  For example, you could report the
average speed around a circuit in two conditions plus standard
deviations and a significance test to tell whether you have evidence
that the conditions lead to different results. {\em For coursework~1, this
must include video.}  Typically, the results section can be
surprisingly short, since the Approach section is the one giving
details. Results are purely and only factual outcomes (no alternative facts).

With respect to {\em your} results (your marks), if you describe a
reasonably-well working system in a comprehensible manner you will
pass.  If you competently fill in all of these sections as described
in this specification, you will get at least~55.  Getting a mark
over~70 requires demonstrating insight, creativity and / or
understanding that goes beyond the basics laid out for you in this
document.  For example, an insightful comment about one or more cited
papers supported by evidence from your experience might get you these
extra marks.  So might a particularly accurate, replicable, yet
succinct and to-the-point account of your approach and results.

\section{Discussion}

The discussion is the most discursive part of your paper, it {\em may}
include speculation. You should discuss the extent to which your
results addressed the questions described in your introduction, and
what the results imply about your own work and AI or robotics more broadly.  You
might suggest other experimental protocols that could have given
different results and lessons learned.  This can be a longer section,
and may again include citations if you compare or contrast to other
published accounts. It is a very good place to show you have learned
from the coursework, even if you didn't do so in time to `teach' your
robot much.


\section{Conclusion}
The conclusion is just one paragraph.  After possible digressions in
the discussion, you should come back to restate exactly what you tried
to do (a brief summary of the introduction), what the outcome was (brief
summary of the results), and what you can certainly state as a
result of this (the implications of the results, in light of the rest
of the report.)

\bibliographystyle{apalike}
\bibliography{biblio}

\end{document}
