2018 case study: Difference between revisions
Mr. MacKenty (talk | contribs) |
Mr. MacKenty (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
== Previous years case study and test == | == Previous years case study and test == | ||
* [[2017 case study]] | |||
* [[Media:2017 case study.pdf|Click here for the 2017 case study]] | * [[Media:2017 case study.pdf|Click here for the 2017 case study]] | ||
* [[Media:2016 case study test.pdf | Click here for the 2016 case study test]] | * [[Media:2016 case study test.pdf | Click here for the 2016 case study test]] | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 17 July 2017
Case study[1]
Introduction[edit]
This page will help you organize and understand the 2018 case study.
The case study[edit]
Click here for the full pdf case study
Terms worth deeply understanding[edit]
- Template for student-defined terms
- Autonomous
- Backpropagation
- BigO notation
- Bounding boxes
- Brute-force
- Convolutional neural networks (CNNs)
- Cost function
- Deep learning
- Dijkstra’s algorithm
- End-to-end learning
- Feature maps (Activation maps)
- Filters (Kernels)
- Filter stride
- Greedy algorithm
- Machine learning
- Max-pooling / Pooling
- Multi-layer perceptron (MLP)
- Nearest neighbour algorithm
- Overfitting
- Point clouds
- Receptive field
- Sensor Fusion
- Society of Automotive Engineers
- Shift invariance (Spatial invariance)
- Vehicle-to-vehicle (VTV) protocol
- Vehicle-to-infrastructure (VTI) protocol
Previous years case study and test[edit]
- 2017 case study
- Click here for the 2017 case study
- Click here for the 2016 case study test
- Click here for the 2016 case study