Grading & rubric

We grade with a priority-based rubric and no fixed percentages. The priorities show what we pay most attention to: strong work on priorities 1 and 2 usually marks an excellent project, but neglecting the later ones can still lower your grade considerably.

You get one final grade on the German scale (1.0 to 5.0). We don't report separate scores for the criteria.

Priority 1

1. Research question & motivation

Aspect	What we look for
Clarity	Is the question specific, answerable and relevant to computational medicine?
Background	Does the team understand prior work and the clinical context?
Motivation	Is the clinical or scientific importance of the problem clear?
Feasibility	Is the scope right for a one-semester project?

tip

Projects that start from a focused, well-motivated question are easier to carry out and usually score higher.

Priority 2

2. Results, analysis & reflection

Aspect	What we look for
Clarity of results	Are the findings clearly presented and supported by evidence?
Critical reflection	Does the team discuss limitations and alternative explanations?
Consistency	Do the results address the stated objectives?
Scientific maturity	Does the team understand what the results mean, and what they don't?

Priority 3

3. Methods & technical implementation

Aspect	What we look for
Methodological soundness	Are the methods appropriate and justified?
Execution quality	Is the implementation correct, documented and reproducible?
Innovation	Does the team adapt or improve existing techniques thoughtfully?
Validation	Are the evaluation metrics meaningful and properly applied?

note

Reproducing and extending an existing method is fine. Sound reasoning and careful validation count for more than originality.

4. Reproducibility & documentation

Aspect	What we look for
Organization	Are code, data and instructions complete and coherent?
Transparency	Are all decisions and parameters documented?
Repeatability	Can the main results be regenerated from the materials provided?
Ethics & compliance	Are data handled responsibly (no leaks, proper attribution)?

See the reproducibility package page for the requirements.

5. Poster, video & discussion

Aspect	What we look for
Poster and video	Are they visually clear and focused on the science, without promotional fluff? Does the video make sense on its own?
Walkthrough	Is the team's walkthrough in the poster session concise and engaging?
Discussion	Can the team explain and defend its choices while we interrupt with questions?
Clarity	Can both technical and clinical audiences follow the ideas?

We grade the walkthrough per team. The presentation package describes the symposium format, including when a conversation during a break counts as your walkthrough.

You must be able to explain your work

This criterion sits in priority 3, but if you can't convincingly explain what you did, why and what it means, we can't count the project as a success, however strong it is technically.

Priority 4

6. Independence, initiative & professionalism

Aspect	What we look for
Ownership	Does the team plan, carry out and troubleshoot its own work, and come to us when it needs input?
Proactivity	Does the team identify missing information, tools or collaborators early?
Effort & persistence	Is steady progress visible in commits, drafts or iterations?
Class participation	Does at least one team member come to every class, give an update and ask a question? See class participation.
Professional behavior	Is communication with teammates, the course team and collaborators reliable, respectful and timely? Does at least one team member stay at the poster during every symposium break?

Asking questions never counts against you. What counts against you is needing reminders, missing a class without telling us beforehand in a ticket or leaving problems for us to solve.

Bonuses and penalties

We can adjust the final grade up or down at our discretion. These adjustments are qualitative, with no fixed point values.

Situation	Adjustment
Outstanding innovation or contribution, such as exceptional insight, novel analysis or an unusually polished result	Can raise the final grade
Exceptional independence and professionalism, including when working with clinicians, industry partners or other collaborators	Can raise the final grade considerably
Topic approved in the late approval window	May lower the final grade slightly
Late submission without prior notice or a valid reason	Lowers the grade severely, or we may not accept the materials
Unprofessional behavior in external collaborations, such as missed meetings, poor responsiveness, ignoring agreed directions or losing a partner's trust	Lowers the grade and your reputation in the course
Plagiarism or academic misconduct	Automatic failure (5.0). See the plagiarism & citation policy.
Relying on AI tools to the point of shallow or unverifiable work	Counts against criteria 2 and 6 (Results, analysis & reflection; Independence, initiative & professionalism). See AI tools & academic integrity.