CMT304 Coursework Assessment Pro-forma

Cardiff School of Computer Science and Informatics

Coursework Assessment Pro-forma

Module Code: CMT304

Module Title: Programming Paradigms

Lecturer: V´ıctor Gutierrez-Basulto and Frank Langbein ´

Assessment Title: Logic and functional programming

Assessment Number: 1

Date Set: 28th October 2019

Submission date and Time: 10th December 2019 at 9:30am

Return Date: 14th January 2020

This assignment is worth 25% of the total marks available for this module. If coursework is

submitted late (and where there are no extenuating circumstances):

1. If the assessment is submitted no later than 24 hours after the deadline, the mark for

the assessment will be capped at the minimum pass mark;

2. If the assessment is submitted more than 24 hours after the deadline, a mark of 0 will

be given for the assessment.

Your submission must include the official Coursework Submission Cover sheet, which can

be found here:

https://docs.cs.cf.ac.uk/downloads/coursework/Coversheet.pdf

Submission Instructions

All submission must be via Learning Central. Upload the following files in a single zip file,

[student number].zip:

Description Type Name

Cover Sheet Compulsory One PDF (.pdf) file [student number].pdf

Task 1 Compulsory One source file task1.{lp,hs}

(pick suffix according to

programming language

chosen)

Task 2 Compulsory One PDF (.pdf) file task2.pdf

Any code submitted will be run on on a system equivalent to those available in the Linux

laboratory and must be submitted as stipulated in the instructions above.

Any deviation from the submission instructions above (including the number and types of

files submitted) will result in a mark of zero for the assessment or question part.

Staff reserve the right to invite students to a meeting to discuss coursework submissions.

Your submissions will be checked for plagiarism. Your work must be your own and

you must independently solve the problem and submit your own solution. Any other

1 DRAFT

material or sources of information you use must be referenced. Code and text you

submit will be compared with other submissions and various other sources on and

off the Internet. Any substantial similarities of you submission to unreferenced work

or material not created by yourself will be subject to unfair practice procedures.

Marks will only be assigned for work you have done yourself (incl. finding and discussing material from references, but not the referenced work; there are no marks for

code copied from elsewhere, but for either writing your own code or integrating and

adapting code that you have not written).

Assignment

Consider the following situation:

Patent requests are submitted to the patent office and are reviewed by the

technical board. Each patent request is verified and discussed by a group of

technical board members chosen by the head of the board. To find a good match

between patent request and referees, every member of the technical board submits a bid that classifies all requests that need to be reviewed into four categories

depending on their expertise:

EXPERT, KNOWLEDGEABLE, FAMILIAR or INEXPERT

The goal is to write a program to automated this process to help the head of the board. Using

a list of bids, indicating the level of expertise for each patent request and board member,

it should assign each submitted patent request to a specific number of n members of the

technical board such that

• the workloads of the technical board members are approximately equal, that is, do not

differ by more than m; • no member of the technical board is required to review a submission that is placed in

the INEXPERT category;

• no member of the technical board is required to review more than k submissions from

the FAMILIAR category;

• the total number of cases when a submission is assigned to a member who placed it

in the EXPERT category is as large as possible.

The parameters n, m and k are arguments set when calling the program.

Task 1: Write a functional or logic program (in Haskell or ASP) which finds all solutions to

the problem, given n, m, k and the list of bids in a suitable format. Make sure you document

your code so it is clear how it should be used and what the approach to solving the problem

is. Also include your name and student id in the comments. Note, there is no ‘correct’

programming paradigm to solve this problem. The representation of the problem can be

specific to the programming language used.

Task 2: Write a short report on logic vs. functional programming related to the problem:

1. Provide, in up to 300 words, two arguments for and two arguments against using logic

programming to solve the problem.

2 DRAFT

2. Provide, in up to 300 words, two arguments for and two arguments against using

functional programming to solve the problem.

3. Justify, in up to 300 words, your choice of programming paradigm, based on your

previous arguments.

The word limits are an upper limit, not a target length. Text longer than the word limit for

each point will be ignored. Clearly mark each argument in your answer and indicate if it is for

and against. Only provide two arguments for and against for the first two points; additional

arguments will be ignored.

Learning Outcomes Assessed

Discuss and contrast the issues, features, design and concepts of logic and functional programming.

Criteria for assessment

Task 1: maximum 50 marks, assessed according to the following scale

Fail 0 No code has been submitted.

1 1 14 Code does not run or does not produce valid output for any valid input; little

to no relevant documentation.

15 5 24 Code is valid without syntax errors and creates a valid output for every

valid input (or produces a suitable error message for valid cases it cannot

process). Even if the output is not a solution, a suitable attempt to solve the

problem is visible. An attempt to document the code has been made.

Pass 25 5 29 Code is valid without syntax errors and creates a valid output for every

valid input (or produces a suitable error message for valid cases it cannot

process). A suitable attempt to solve the problem has been made, that

will often find at least one solution (if there is any). The attempt has been

reasonably documented, but no consideration has been given to optimise

the program’s performance.

Merit 30 0 34 Code is valid without syntax errors and creates a valid output for every

valid input (or produces a suitable error message for valid cases it cannot

process). A suitable attempt to solve the problem has been made, that will

find all solutions (if there are any). The attempt has been well documented.

Distinction 35 5 50 Code is valid without syntax errors and creates a valid output for every valid

input. A suitable attempt to solve the problem has been made, that will find

all solutions (if there are any) for all problems, with excellent performance.

The attempt has been well documented and clearly shows an effort to optimise the program’s performance, e.g. by using efficient algorithms and

data repres1entations and also some heuristics.

Task 2: maximum 50 marks, assessed according to the following scale

Fail 0 No document has been submitted.

1 1 14 An insufficient number of arguments has been submitted and/or they hardly

apply to the logic and functional programming paradigms. At most an incomplete attempt to justify the choice of paradigm has been made.

3 DRAFT

15 5 24 An insufficient number of arguments has been submitted, but they show

some understanding of the logic and functional programming paradigms.

An attempt has been made to justify the choice of paradigm.

Pass 25 5 29 The required number of valid arguments has been submitted. They are

generally valid for the logic and functional programming pradigm, but they

repeat similar issues, do not consider the specific problem or contain mistakes in the details. A suitable attempt has been made to justify the choice

of paradigm.

Merit 30 0 34 The required number of valid arguments has been submitted. They show

a clear understanding of the logic and functional programming paradigms

and how these relate to the problem. The choice of paradigm to solve the

problem is well justified based on these arguments.

Distinction 35 5 50 The required number of valid arguments has been submitted. They show a

clear understanding of the logic and functional programming paradigms and

the underlying theoretical concepts and/or realisations on programmable

machines and how these relate to the problem. The choice of paradigm to

solve the problem is well justified based on these arguments and shows an

undestanding of related performance issues.

Feedback and suggestion for future learning