Filter by keyword, subject, or both. Updates live as new model answers are added to our portal.
Machine Learning and Deep Learning
2,000 words
Development and Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for Healthcare Classification
This individual technical assessment focuses on the design, development, analysis and evaluation of a deep learning solution for a healthcare-related classification problem. Students select one of two provided scenarios: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) detection using ultrasound images or heartbeat classification using electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. The objective is to develop an appropriate deep learning approach and demonstrate critical understanding of the complete machine learning workflow, from initial data exploration through to model evaluation and reflection. Students may either design and train a deep learning model from scratch or customise and fine-tune an existing pre-trained architecture. The complete work is presented through a single Jupyter Notebook integrating Python code, technical discussion, results and visualisations. The notebook must clearly define the selected healthcare problem, explain its significance, justify methodological and architectural choices, and critically evaluate the resulting solution. The first stage involves exploratory data analysis and preprocessing, including investigation of class distributions, data imbalance and relevant patterns. Students prepare the data through techniques such as normalisation, augmentation, train-validation-test splitting and appropriate handling of class imbalance. This is followed by model design, training, validation and hyperparameter tuning, with the architecture selected according to the characteristics of the data and classification task. Model performance must then be evaluated using appropriate classification measures, including precision, recall, F1-score, ROC curves and area under the curve (AUC). The developed model should also be compared against suitable benchmark approaches, which may include traditional machine learning algorithms or alternative deep learning architectures. This comparison should identify the relative strengths and limitations of the proposed solution. The final component requires clear visual presentation and critical reflection on the complete modelling process, including limitations, challenges and opportunities for improvement. Importantly, grading prioritises methodological rigour, analytical depth and critical evaluation rather than simply achieving the highest predictive accuracy. Overview word count: approximately 330 words. AI restriction: this brief only permits automated AI tools for spelling and grammar checking. It explicitly prohibits tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot from authoring assessment text or code; any permitted AI use must also be acknowledged.
Read Model Answer →
Machine Learning / Artificial Intelligence and Data Science
1,000 words
End-to-End Machine Learning Model Development, Tuning and Evaluation
This Level 7 Machine Learning and Intelligent Agents assessment requires students to develop and document an end-to-end machine-learning solution, covering the complete workflow from data preparation through model training, tuning, testing and evaluation. Students select an appropriate dataset or scenario, formulate a research question and determine whether the problem is most appropriately addressed through supervised learning, unsupervised learning or reinforcement learning. Suitable machine-learning techniques must then be implemented to create a model that can be systematically trained and tested. The assignment requires students to follow a structured machine-learning development process and document the complete development journey. The report should explain the selected scenario, data collection or dataset, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), rationale for selecting particular machine-learning methods, model training, fine-tuning and evaluation. Model performance must be assessed using appropriate established metrics, with relevant published research used to justify methodological decisions and support the interpretation of results. The technical implementation should demonstrate the ability to identify the performance of machine-learning algorithms, implement machine-learning approaches using one or more object-oriented programming languages, and determine which algorithms are most appropriate for a particular analytical brief. These requirements directly correspond to the module learning outcomes relating to machine-learning performance, implementation and algorithm selection. Students are advised to document their work within a Jupyter Notebook, combining Markdown explanations with executable code. The notebook may be submitted directly or converted to PDF. Alternatively, students may prepare the 1,000-word report in Microsoft Word, provided that the Python code is included within the submitted document. Assessment is divided into three principal areas: Introduction (20 marks), Machine Learning Process (40 marks), and Evaluation of Model Performance (40 marks). Higher-level work is expected to demonstrate strong understanding of machine-learning concepts, a functioning and thoroughly tested implementation, appropriate selection of algorithms and critical evaluation of the developed solution. Overall, the assessment integrates research-question formulation, data exploration, algorithm selection, programming, model optimisation and evidence-based evaluation within a reproducible machine-learning workflow. All academic sources must be presented using Harvard referencing.
Read Model Answer →
Machine Learning / Data Mining / Text Mining
Machine Learning Analysis of Classification Models and Text Mining on Furniture Review Data
This technical machine-learning report demonstrates the practical application of predictive modelling and text mining using WEKA. The work is divided into two major tasks. The first evaluates and compares Support Vector Machine and Decision Tree classification models, while the second applies text-mining techniques to furniture-review data and compares multiple classifiers after preprocessing, feature selection and class balancing. The first task uses the Screenshots.arff dataset to investigate the performance of libSVM and J48 Decision Tree classifiers. A 70% training and 30% testing split is applied, and the models are manually tuned to examine how different parameter settings affect predictive performance. For libSVM, an RBF kernel is used while different gamma and cost values are tested through grid-search-style experimentation. The report identifies gamma 0.03 and cost 2 as the strongest tested combination, producing approximately 91.67% accuracy on the test split. The J48 model is also optimised by adjusting the confidence factor used for pruning. Several confidence-factor values are examined, with 0.09 producing the strongest reported result of 80% accuracy. The optimised SVM and J48 models are then compared using five-fold cross-validation, where libSVM achieves 89.75% accuracy compared with 81.25% for J48. The second task focuses on text mining of Furniture Reviews. Text preprocessing includes TF-IDF term weighting, stopword removal, stemming, conversion to lowercase and word-count generation. The resulting textual dataset is transformed into a numerical feature representation suitable for machine-learning classification. Dimensionality reduction is performed using InfoGainAttributeEval with Ranker, selecting the 900 most informative attributes. The dataset is then balanced using WEKA techniques including Resample and SpreadSubsample to reduce class bias before classification. Finally, three classifiers—Naive Bayes, libSVM and J48—are evaluated on the balanced text dataset. The reported accuracies are 90.52% for Naive Bayes, 58.62% for libSVM and 78.45% for J48. The analysis concludes that Naive Bayes performs strongest for the processed furniture-review dataset, while the wider exercise demonstrates the importance of preprocessing, parameter tuning, feature selection, class balancing and appropriate model evaluation in producing reliable classification results. Important: this upload appears to be the completed student report, not the actual assessment guideline. Because the document does not state the university, module name, academic level, academic year, required word count or prescribed referencing style, I would leave those fields as Not specified rather than guessing.
Read Model Answer →
Machine Learning / Cloud Computing
3,984 words
Machine Learning on Cloud: Fraud Detection Model Design, Training and Evaluation
This postgraduate group project focuses on the design, development and critical evaluation of a cloud-based machine learning solution for financial fraud detection. The scenario involves a financial services organisation seeking to detect fraudulent transactions in order to reduce financial losses and improve customer security. Students are required to analyse an appropriate dataset, develop a machine learning solution, evaluate its effectiveness and critically consider the suitability of cloud technologies for deployment. The project begins with a cloud feasibility study, requiring critical comparison of at least two major machine learning platforms such as Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform. Evaluation criteria include performance, scalability, cost, compliance, integration and vendor lock-in, followed by a justified recommendation. Students then conduct exploratory data analysis to identify patterns, anomalies and correlations using appropriate visualisations such as heatmaps, histograms and boxplots. A substantial component addresses data preprocessing and class imbalance. Students are expected to clean and transform the data, apply scaling and encoding, perform feature engineering and investigate approaches such as SMOTE, undersampling and cost-sensitive learning. Each preprocessing choice must be justified in terms of its potential impact on model performance. Students must select and train at least two machine learning models, with suggested approaches including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost and Neural Networks. Model development incorporates cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning. Evaluation uses fraud-relevant measures including Precision, Recall, F1 score, AUC and precision-recall curves, supported by confusion matrices, ROC curves and feature-importance visualisations. The project concludes with critical consideration of professional and ethical issues in cloud-based AI, including bias, fairness, transparency, data privacy and sustainability. The overall assessment therefore integrates cloud-platform evaluation, machine learning development, imbalanced classification, model evaluation and responsible AI practice. Overview word count: approximately 340 words.
Read Model Answer →
Machine Learning / Artificial Intelligence and Data Science
1,011 words
End-to-End Machine Learning Model Development, Testing and Evaluation
This Level 7 Machine Learning and Intelligent Agents assignment requires students to develop and document an end-to-end machine-learning solution, covering the complete process from data preparation through model training, tuning, testing and evaluation. Students independently select a suitable dataset or scenario, formulate an appropriate research question and determine whether the problem should be addressed using supervised learning, unsupervised learning or reinforcement learning. Appropriate machine-learning algorithms must then be implemented to create a model capable of being trained and objectively tested. The assessment encourages the use of a structured machine-learning development methodology. Students are expected to explain the selected scenario and data source, perform suitable data preparation and Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), and provide a reasoned justification for the machine-learning methods selected. The development process should demonstrate how the chosen algorithms are trained and fine-tuned before their performance is evaluated using established and relevant metrics. Published academic research should be incorporated to justify methodological choices and support the interpretation of results. The technical work is normally documented within a Jupyter Notebook, combining Markdown explanations with executable code cells. Alternatively, the report may be produced in Microsoft Word provided that the Python implementation is included. The assignment therefore assesses both conceptual understanding and practical programming competence. Students must demonstrate an ability to identify the performance of machine-learning algorithms, implement machine-learning techniques using an object-oriented programming language, and evaluate which algorithms are appropriate for a particular analytical brief. Assessment places particular emphasis on three areas: the Introduction, the Machine Learning Process, and the Evaluation of Model Performance. The marking criteria reward strong understanding of machine-learning concepts, a functioning and thoroughly tested implementation, appropriate selection of algorithms, and critical evaluation of the final solution. At the highest achievement level, implementations are expected to work without exception, satisfy the required functionality, demonstrate comprehensive testing and extend beyond the basic requirements. Overall, the assignment combines research-question formulation, data analysis, algorithm selection, machine-learning implementation, model optimisation and evidence-based evaluation within a reproducible technical workflow. All academic sources and supporting material must be presented using Harvard referencing.
Read Model Answer →
Artificial Intelligence
2,000 words
End-to-End Applied AI Development — Comparative Machine Learning and Neural Network Modelling on a Public Dataset
This assessment runs a complete applied AI development cycle end to end: problem definition, dataset selection, preprocessing, model building, optimisation, evaluation and critical reflection. Students identify a real-world problem themselves, formulate a research question from it, and source a suitable dataset from a recognised public repository such as UCI, Kaggle, Data.gov or OpenML. Dataset choice carries more weight than students expect. It must be genuinely suitable for supervised learning, complex enough to make preprocessing and feature engineering meaningful, and — critically — structured so that a traditional machine learning approach and a deep learning approach can be sensibly compared on it. A dataset too small or too clean makes the neural network component pointless; one too large or too noisy makes the whole pipeline unfinishable within the page limit. The source must be referenced and the choice explicitly justified against the research problem. The modelling requirement is fixed: at least two supervised machine learning models, plus one artificial neural network built in a mainstream deep learning framework, all trained and tested. The comparison between them is the analytical core of the work. Reporting that the neural network scored higher is not an answer; explaining why, in terms of the data's structure and each model's inductive assumptions, is. Marks are distributed across problem framing, the traditional models, the deep learning model, evaluation and critical analysis including responsible AI considerations, and academic communication. That responsible AI component is easy to overlook and is not decorative — it asks what the model's limitations mean for anyone who might rely on it. Presentation requirements are specific. The report is page-limited rather than purely word-limited, and every plot must be described in the text while also being legible enough to communicate on its own — a common failure is dense default library output pasted in without axis labels or scale. The implementation is documented in a notebook combining markdown and code cells so the development process is visible, not just the final result, and submissions typically include the cleaned dataset alongside the code. The strongest submissions treat the notebook and the report as one argument. Weaker ones produce a working notebook and then write a report that describes it, rather than a report that uses it as evidence. Our support on assessments of this type is guidance-based. Typical areas of help include: advising on whether a candidate dataset can actually support the required model comparison, explaining how to justify preprocessing decisions, clarifying which evaluation metrics suit which problem type and why accuracy alone is often misleading, showing how to structure a critical limitations and responsible AI discussion, checking Harvard referencing, and reviewing a student's own draft against the published marking criteria.
Read Model Answer →