This document is a comprehensive guide aiming to make it easier for EIE (and EEE) students to choose their modules for 4th year, as well as containing general advice for the year. Additional information on modules can be found by looking at SOLE survey results (see here), although if you're looking for a more unfiltered view then you're probably in the right place. For modules shared between EEE and EIE, reviews are marked EEE or EIE (and if left blank are unknown), but the numeric scores are EIE only.
This document is maintained by the EIE departmental representative, instructions to maintain can be found here. If you'd like to add feedback, please submit it here (Please check that the year of the survey matches your current academic year, and if it doesn't contact your dep rep!)
- General Advice
- FYP Advice
- Autumn Term
- EEE Modules
- Advanced Communication Theory
- Coding Theory
- Digital Image Processing
- Probability and Stochastic Processes
- Stability and Control of Non-linear Systems
- Systems Identification and Learning
- Optimisation
- Wavelets, Representation Learning and their Applications
- Modelling and Control of Multi-Body Mechanical Systems
- Power System Economics
- Topics in Large Dimensional Data Processing
- Self-Organising Multi-Agent Systems
- Hardware and Software Verification
- DoC Modules
- EEE Modules
- Spring Term
- EE Modules
- Digital Signal Processing and Digital Filters
- Adaptive Signal Processing and Machine Intelligence
- Speech Processing
- Digital Control Systems
- Design of Linear Multivariable Control Systems
- Information Theory
- Sustainable Electrical Systems
- Predictive Control
- Discrete-Event Systems
- Human-Centered Robotics
- Wireless Communications and Optimisation
- Signal Processing and Machine Learning for Finance
- Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Advanced Optimisation
- DoC Modules
- EE Modules
FYP:
- Start this as soon as possible
- Don’t make the mistake of forgetting about this or overprioritising your other modules until the Summer Term. Keep working on it regularly throughout the year!!!
- If in doubt over how to do something, try something. Anything is better than nothing.
- This is the biggest part of your year – worth way more than any single module
Jobs: start applying asap (duh)
Don’t spend too much time working – your mental health will thank you Learn how to prioritise your time effectively – is XYZ really worth your time? - JZ
Stay on top of your work - being organised is a massive key to success in fourth year as you also have to manage graduate job applications and your final year project. Speaking of FYPs, I would recommend getting a lot of work for your project done as early as you can, including the interim report because it definitely helps you later on in the year. You can leave work to the summer term and still do well in your project but you definitely won't gain as much from the experience and will hinder your grades at least a bit. It depends where your priorities lie (project, grades or grad job), but choose which is your priority and stick to it.
Take a business module and frontload your modules this year. I did 6 modules in my first term and 1 in my second, which gave me plenty of time to work on FYP without interruption in spring.
I'd rather leave the spring term quite empty for FYP work. If you are not gonna stay in the academia, this year you can basically fuck around whole year, but what to make out of this year is entirely up to you.
Getting a grad job as early as possible helps you a lot mentally. So, try to get one offer at least.
Try to do as many exams and modules in Autumn term. If you really want to invest in the FYP it will be hard to do it with more than or 2 exams in May. Plus, I would recommend choosing easy modules so that you can focus properly on the FYP without distractions like ASP style modules – 2020-21
Keep a steady pace at all times, you'll be fine. Supervisors won't care about your project unless you go to them with ideas/next steps/implementations. You are almost always on your own but PhDs/post-docs can be immensely valuable for your project (even more so than your supervisor!!) - 2020-21
Don't put it all off until the summer term, but you can do so and still get a good mark. I did no work beyond the required interim report until May, and got a 2:1. But it was quite hellish doing so. – 2019-20
There is less time than you might think. It's important to choose a really well defined project so you don't have to waste time searching for what to focus on and what you need to achieve. – 2019-20
Write report as you go, through the term will save you a lot of editing time later – 2019-20
Stay disciplined, motivated and organised. If you have your own idea for the project, I would highly recommend you do it, as this way you are guaranteed to have a project that you're passionate about, and have more autonomy over. However regardless the project is a great opportunity to complete a piece of work all by yourself and at the end you definitely feel accomplished that you completed it, even if you felt pretty daunted at the beginning of the year. – 2019-20
Don't be afraid to discuss changing the scope of your project with your supervisor. Many of them would much prefer a smaller, really well done project to a big on that isn't great. Also don't jump straight in, spend your time on research before starting. - 2019-20
Choose something you are genuinely interested in, in an area which you know you enjoy, and work consistently on it. Otherwise you will suffer. – 2019-20
The FYP should be neglected for other modules even during Autumn term. Good planning and regular meeting with your supervisor are key for the FYP. Being pro-active will really benefit the FYP – Clementine Biet (EEE), 2019-20
Don't leave it until last minute, there is way too much work to do to manage it in a month. Also, communicate with your supervisor, they have done this before and are really helpful – 2019-20
Avoid drama in the first week and either check Tom Clarke's project list early on (there should be a few projects in September) or think about self-proposing a project. Also, choose your supervisor well - make sure they'll be able to meet regularly and give you actual advice. – 2019-20
Check the module page for details of examination method (coursework / open book / closed book examinations). Please note that examinations for these modules will take place in the summer term and NOT at the end of autumn like 3rd year modules.
Imperial Module Page: here
Manikas is a great lecturer although the content itself may not be that interesting for those who won't go into COMMS that much. High marks almost guaranteed and a very organized module.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 1.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 3.0 out of 5
- Overall: 1.0 out of 5
Comments
Don't do it, too much work and little reward, marking was late and disorganised
Lecturer is not always clear, but high marks were given.
The last CW is hard and takes a lot of your time during the busiest time of the term which is the end.
He says it isn't a "coding" module but it is. Make sure you get a group that is good at coding because it saves a lot of time. The content is interesting and he is decent as a lecturer. - KG
Imperial Module Page: here
A really good module. You may doubt Tania after 2nd year linear systems, but when teaching a subject she's actually interested in she's very engaging and a good lecturer. I wish there was a practical component to this module to put into practice the techniques talked about. The exam is very doable, and has remained fairly consistent over the last few years (i.e. past papers are your friend).
Imperial Module Page: here
Very similar to 2nd year module, however exam is much harder in my opinion. If you confident in maths it is a good module to take, but otherwise would avoid it if you looking for amazing grades
Good refresher on second year stats, but does not cover many new concepts (except in the last couple of lectures). – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Just reads the slides in the lecture; contents have many repetitions with the contents covered in previous years (about 5-6 chapters??)
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 2 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 4.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.0 out of 5
- Overall: 4.0 out of 5
Very good lectures, really interesting and covers the concepts of optimisation really well. The exam is average, neither hard or easy. But it has a good structure and it is unlikely it will have weird or unexpected questions.
You can take this course just for the lecturer himself!
A very well taught introduction to optimisation. Quite maths heavy, but not too bad as everything is explained well. A full textbook along with problems is given.
Very interesting, especially if you like maths. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Good lectures; the exam does not correlate with the book much (the book is much harder)
Imperial Module Page: here
Probably the best course I took at Imperial. Most of the concepts covered are somewhat new, and honestly quite challenging, but Dragotti gives a refresher on all the maths you need, and does a very good job at giving you intuition on everything. In the end you'll learn about super interesting principles behind data representation and compression. There is a small coursework component to this module - it is very quick to do and helps a lot by giving practical applications of what you're studying. The exam is not too hard compared to the module itself. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
A hard course, but can learn something from it; everything is well-structured.
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
Interesting module that highlights the less-technical side of EEE. The lecturer is a bit strict and often deliberately records the lectures without sound to make you attend them in real time (idk how this will change with covid) but the content is well taught. The content and thus by extension the coursework and exam were really do-able so it's easy to do well and get a high score in this module.
Great if you enjoy economics, does not require technical knowledge of power systems (he goes through anything you may need to know for the module), textbook is very helpful and well-written.
Imperial Module Page: here
The module itself is quite hard and Dai tries to condense and simplify it to a level that we can understand. Other than the first coursework, the rest aren't that difficult in terms of implementation but conceptually they can be a bit more difficult. - KG
N.B: Module used to be exam based, but has since changed to 100% coursework
If you hate maths, dodge this. Dai goes through content very quickly and there is lots of notation given with little explanation. There is a presentation worth 25% and he is generous with marks there, but otherwise unless you really understand the content, the exam is a nightmare. Dai provides no supporting material for his lectures, like problem sheets, claiming that you can ace his exam purely with his slides.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 2 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 5.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.5 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Comments
It you don't want a Christmas holiday take this module (unless it's changed) and make sure you choose a good group
So... this was an experience. 47 people all doing the same coursework. I took two days off during the entire Christmas break cos I spent all of my time working on this module. Was it worth it? Probably not. But also I did enjoy it (maybe I'm a masochist) and I learned a lot from it. Gained lots of software engineering experience and learned a lot about project management. Inevitably with a group this size you will have people who do fuck all for it. Students decide everything – programming language, version control, how to split into groups, which groups do what work, etc. You get out what you put in for this module. JZ (EIE)
Time consuming but a very interesting module.. Do it if you can sacrifice your XMas break.
This is a really weird module. Content is about how to form rules and behaviours within a system of agents to make it sustainable, which is fun. Pitt is an engaging lecturer, though will quite often promote his own political views within a lecture. The coursework is where it gets weird. You get tasked to create a simulation based on some brief. However for us the group size was 18 (the entire module), which is a hilarious time. If you manage to sort out management and decide on a framework quickly, it's all bueno. But working in a group that big, while a useful experience, is painful as cliques get formed and there is usually some terrible group politics to navigate to get anything done. One other fun point is that we got to decide how the marks were awarded within the group. Because we felt that giving everyone the same mark based on the quality of the end simulation and investigation was unfair (some people could get a good mark while contributing very little), we set up our own peer assessment scheme and decided how much of the module the peer assessment was worth.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 3 respondants.
- Content: 4.33 out of 5
- Organisation: 4.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.0 out of 5
- Overall: 4.33 out of 5
Comments
Very good module, it's fairly new, but lecturers keep improving it and I like the state of it (2 years ago it was apparently quite rough). Teaches lots of SystemVerilog which is a must have for any hardware role, but also the software part gives a very different view on writing 'trustworthy' code, which is also starting to get attention in industry
This module is split between two lecturers so it's harder to give at overall rating. Some organisation for the hardware part was lacking and lectures weren't too engaging.
It is what you sign up for: proving that software works (which is not testing software). Dr. Wickerson has the lectures up on his Github and they're quite straightforward to set your expectations. You have to 1- reason about a proof of why your algorithm works and 2- "write" this proof to be interpreted and confirmed by a verification tool. The hardware part can be improved by a lot. While you learn about practical verification methods (e.g. you have to build testbenches), it lacks a structure and could be much better organized. In terms of marks, I think the marking scheme was fairly generous VS the amount of work you have to put in. - Jaafar (EIE)
Partnered with Jaafar for this one – the hardware coursework is really open-ended – you can do ‘enough' and come away with a quite decent mark, but you also have the opportunity to really stretch yourself and get a really good mark. JZ (EIE)
Badly run and badly taught. Balance of CW between two halves is atrocious, marks were given for things not that important. Because I'm still bitter you get details: the hardware half assigned most if its marks to verifying a hardware system, which is good. Except we weren't given a system and told to verify it, we had to design a system to meet a spec (for close to zero marks), and then verify it.
This course feels like it could be split in two. The software side definitely had a feeling of "you get it or you don't", and Dafny is not fun to use. Prof Harrod's teaching didn't really give a great overview of the subject and was closer to teaching system verilog rather than techniques for writing hardware testbenches. However, this was the first year that the course has run, and I imagine it will improve substantially based on feedback.
The module is split into two halves: hardware with Harrod and software with Wickerson. The hardware content is interesting, but Harrod has the incredible ability to put anyone to sleep when lecturing. The coursework for hardware is to design a hardware module and build a testbench for it, which is great but takes a lot of time. The software content is the biggest waste of time. You'd think it'd be about unit tests, integration tests and the like, but instead it's about two languages called Isabelle and Dafny. These two languages are designed for proving algorithms work, but have so little useful documentation and online help that the software coursework is a huge pain up the backside. The content is completely useless (for reference the Dafny subreddit has 1 post and 8 subscribers, and the Isabelle subreddit was taken over by the Animal Crossing character for 2 years). The total coursework for this module is a lot, and unless Wickerson reworks the software side, do something else.
Things to know about DoC modules:
- DoC modules are typically 20% coursework based 80% exam based. Exams take place on the last week of term, and are predeeded by week where no new material can be taught (no lectures last 2 weeks of term). The majority of DoC exams will be open book this year, where students will be allowed to bring 2 sheets A4 or something similar into exams.
- They do not release past paper solutions. There are instead crowd-sourced solutions which can be found here
- Some courses will assume you have knowledge which you might be missing (e.g. Operating Systems). A 4th year DoC student Eugene has a repository of rendered LaTeX notes, which are really useful in covering some of this content, which you can find here.
- You can find seperate DoC module feedback here, but keep in mind it contains feedback from students with a different background.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 3 respondants.
- Content: 3.33 out of 5
- Organisation: 4.67 out of 5
- Lecturer: 3.67 out of 5
- Overall: 3.33 out of 5
Comments
I found the 1st half much more interesting and better organised than the 2nd one. The coursework could be better, it only covers 2 lectures out of the 1st half, completely omitting the rest of the module. The tutorial/labs are of very high quality, so that helps with learning
Boring
I found this module quite boring in all honesty. The coursework was kinda stupid as well. A bit meh all round I think – wasn't that interesting but I've taken worse modules before. JZ
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - see DoC feedback
Imperial Module Page: here
N.B: EIE students are exempt from taking this course as a pre-requisite for DoC Deep Learning
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 4.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 3.0 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 3.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 3.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.0 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - see DoC feedback
Check the module page for details of examination method (coursework / open book / closed book examinations). Please note that examinations for these modules will take place in the summer term and NOT at the end of autumn like 3rd year modules.
Imperial Module Page: here
Prerequisite: ELEC60010 - Digital Signal Processing
This was Dr Bhandari's first year teaching the course, I get the impression he may change it considerably for next year. The exam was completely different to previous years, and much more difficult. I would recommend only taking this if you really really like DSP. Nothing ground-breaking compared to the 3rd year course is introduced, and I really wouldn't take this module unless you need it.
This was the first year that Dr Bhandari was teaching this module, so it may change a lot next year. The slides were still Mike Brookes', but Bhandari had a few extra slides here and there to put emphasis on different things, a bit hard to follow sometimes. Quite important to attend the lectures, because the sound was rarely recorded on panopto, and a lot of the exam was about things covered in class but not in the notes. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 5.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 1.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 2.0 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Comments
Highly demanding coursework that will require a lot of dedicated time. Perhaps disproportionately too much time given the weighting of the module in the overall year.
Very similar in style to the third year ASP course. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Agree with the comment above, the course focuses on Exercise 4 of 3rd year ASP (Fixed and Adaptive Optimal Filters, especially variants of the LMS algorithm) for the first 2 exercises of ASPMI. Apart from that, the structure is pretty much the same as ASP. The final exercises of Exercise 4 and Exercise 5 use Python and are a lot easier and more interesting. ASPMI lectures are of the same quality as ASP lectures, i.e. not that good. GTAs are not that useful for understanding the coursework - AB
Imperial Module Page: here
Prerequisite: ELEC60010 - Digital Signal Processing
If you liked third year DSP, you'll like this. Very interesting to cover speech in details, which is rarely done in broader signal processing courses. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Good lectures but hard examination
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 3.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 2.0 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Interesting and well-taught module! Although the content is very much math-heavy, exam was decent and the lecturer was very approachable so that you could ask any questions about the content. Would take it again! This course is especially for those who wouldn't mind proving a couple of mathematical theorems and/or those who are at ease with making mathematical arguments)
Imperial Module Page: here
Super interesting module that highlights the options for sustainable energy generation in the past, currently and the plans for the future, as well as reasons for limitations etc. They bring in guest lecturers so you know that the content is topical and up to date. Both courseworks are not only interesting, but simple to do and easy to get a good mark. The same can be said for the exam if you know the content well.
Imperial Module Page: here
Prerequisite: ELEC600008 - Control Engineering
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
This module is confusing at first but if you spend time understanding the algorithms, you'll realise it's pretty logical. You don't need to have taken control modules in 3rd year or even in autumn term of 4th year to do well in this module. There is not too many resources online that use the same terminology as this module, but there is a textbook and Angeli's notes, and those combined are more than enough to understand what is going on. The coursework is a bit of a shock to the system but once you work it out, it is easy to do well in both the coursework and the exam.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 2 respondants.
- Content: 5.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 5.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 5.0 out of 5
- Overall: 5.0 out of 5
Comments
Was good, a lot of work but fun, choose team wisely.
Really good module, really open-ended, lectures are really interesting. You have the freedom to build pretty much any sort of robot. Make sure you pick a really good group who you know will put in the work and who you work well with. Try to get a good mix of people with different experience as well. Highly recommend this one – you won't get anything else like this. JZ (EIE)
This is a cool module where you learn about actual real life applications of EEE but is relatively unstructured. The lectures are more for interest rather than essential for the coursework. The coursework itself is fun as you have free rein to produce pretty much whatever you want but it can often be hard to score high in this module, and the large group sizes also often make this quite difficult.
A really great course, Prof Demiris gives you the freedom (and budget) to do whatever you want. Be warned, you might find this course too enjoyable and spend too much time on it.
Depends on your group, overall a good choice of module with a lot of freedom to do something interesting, support and equipment very accessible if you ask for it.
Interesting module that requires a good group dynamic and planning. The lectures and the coursework are a bit disconnected but the Prof and the Robotics lab are helpful to guide the project. – Clementine Biet (EEE)
Easily one of the best modules in EEE. Yiannis designed the module to give students an excuse to build cool robots, and supplies you with lots of equipment like LIDARs, depth cameras and robot 0arms. You work in a group of 6 or so, and build a robot that interacts with humans in some way to test a hypothesis you come up with. That is your only restriction, everything else is up to you. It's a student-driven module, so don't expect Yiannis to move your project forward. If you are in a motivated group, it is an amazing coursework with lots of practical experience.
Very fun, quite different from any other module in my opinion. The amount of technical skills involved depends a lot on the robot you choose to implement, but you will definitely gain knowledge in hypothesis testing and how to conduct a scientific experiment. Prof. Demiris and his GTAs are super helpful throughout. – Emilie d'Olne (EEE)
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 2 respondants.
- Content: 4.5 out of 5
- Organisation: 2.5 out of 5
- Lecturer: 2.5 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Comments
Applies signal processing and machine learning ideas to finance. Lectures a bit boring. 100% coursework that each year seems to have deadline much after the term end means you don't do much during the term, which reduces the workload. CW itself is in Python, which is quite nice, but you also need to make the (very long) Jupyter Notebook into an actual self-contained report without code, which is really stupid and doesn't add any value.
Coursework is highly demanding and will require a lot of your time to do experiments, generate figures and write the report. This module was slightly better than ASPMI in that the GTAs were more willing to offer help.
Lectures are overall very poor in quality. Some slides even have incorrect theory on them. Just like 3rd year ASP and 4th year ASPMI, you have to submit one report at the end, but this time you have no page limit. GTAs are helpful only if you have questions about the theory. The actual Python code is on the whole relatively easy to complete, the main thing to ensure a good mark is that the final report is written well. The main things the GTAs said were (in order to do well):
- Presentation, formatting and high-quality figures are very important.
- The final deliverable should be a standalone pdf report, as if you are writing a scientific paper. No python code should be included and please try to clearly introduce each concept and analyze critically the results you are getting. A mere presentation of the results is not enough. Would recommend doing everything locally, I.e. Jupyter notebooks and LaTeX report on local PC, as it saves a lot of time in compiling the report (Overleaf has been crashing a lot more frequently this year). Letter grades came back a lot quicker this year than for 3rd Year ASP (grades came on 18th May) - AB
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 4 respondants.
- Content: 3.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 3.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 2.75 out of 5
- Overall: 3.0 out of 5
Comments
First half a bit boring, overlaps with 3rd year DoC Graphics as well as Computer Vision modules. Second half more interesting, but still very easy. Both courseworks done in MATLAB which is far from enjoyable - in the first one most time is spent on taking good photos. Both CWs also have stupidly low page count for the report, so significant time is spent resizing images and cropping text so that it is actually in the limit
Not fun, mainly just grinding out report, apparently will run like Deep Learning from now on which is way better than how it was run this year
The lectures from the computer vision part of the course could be improved as they were not explained well
Easiest module I have ever done at Imperial. Mikolaivic seems really uninterested in the lecture so some concepts are poorly explained even though they seem really interesting. The new lecturer, Spiers teaches the second part of the module in pattern recognition and he goes over very simple concepts without much depth. He is very engaging however and if you ask questions will be very easy to learn more. The coursework is really easy, just follow instructions and submit your matlab results. Would recommend this module as a way to waste little time in Spring term.
This was really dull. Wasn't too hard I suppose, but I really didn't enjoy it that much – especially the first half. Not sure if I really learned anything about CV. Also the lectures appear to have a lot of plagiarised content. Lectures didn't have much context with them so I didn't really understand what was being taught. PR half is a lot better – Ad Spiers is really engaging. Both cw are quite doable, first one I'm not sure what the point of it was. Also they introduced a test at the end of the term for this year, a lot of it was Menti questions from the live lectures. Stupid test but whatever, it wasn't too difficult. JZ (EIE)
Agree with what JZ is saying. The first half of the module (CV) is taught by Krystian and its pretty much the same manner that he lectures for 3rd year DL. The CV coursework is pretty bad in my opinion, as it doesn't really link in with the slides at all. GTAs are helpful for this part if you organize 1-1 meetings with them to discuss your questions. For the final Menti test, be sure to go over all the Menti questions he does in lectures. Also, he doesn't really go over his final lecture (and it doesn't come up in CW1) but it comes up in the test, so be sure to go over it once. Spiers teaches the 2nd half (PR) and his slides align a lot more nicely with the coursework. There's no GTAs for this part, but he is generally pretty quick to respond on Ed. His Menti questions were on the whole ok, but he did throw a couple of random unseen questions in that just require common sense. - AB
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available
Things to know about DoC modules:
- DoC modules are typically 20% coursework based 80% exam based. Exams take place on the last week of term, and are predeeded by week where no new material can be taught (no lectures last 2 weeks of term). The majority of DoC exams will be open book this year, where students will be allowed to bring 2 sheets A4 or something similar into exams.
- They do not release past paper solutions. There are instead crowd-sourced solutions which can be found here
- Some courses will assume you have knowledge which you might be missing (e.g. Operating Systems). A 4th year DoC student Eugene has a repository of rendered LaTeX notes, which are really useful in covering some of this content, which you can find here.
- You can find seperate DoC module feedback here, but keep in mind it contains feedback from students with a different background.
Imperial Module Page: here
EIE: coding theory covers similar overlaps and more in depth with encoding (Hamming and co)
- Moderate in difficulty – good self-contained lecture notes. The hardest thing for me was understanding the group/ring theory and how it related to some of the concepts – people who have taken a group theory course will have a significant advantage on that part of the module, and the module doesn't always explain the ideas well. On the other hand, it isn't directly tested in the exam.
- Michael Huth is OK – competent but not outstanding. Except for a week where he didn't answer on EdSTEM (and attributed it to EdSTEM not notifying him which I am inclined to believe), he was fairly active on EdSTEM and responded reasonably fast.
- There were also optional Python notebooks prepared by a TA and made reasonably well. The coursework was not hard (3 exam-styled questions to be done in groups of 4), though interestingly no one managed to get full marks (median = 92, highest mark = 99, so still high scoring).
- The exam was not hard either – there is a significant amount of "cranking" in that one question is always about elementary probability and (for the last couple of years at least) one question about Shamir Secret computation (the latter can be a timesink, so use an online calculator for find the inverse of an element in a group).
- Overall, while this was the least interesting module for me this semester, that doesn't mean that it is bad (I'm just not good with very pure material).
Imperial Module Page: here
This module was suspended for a couple of years and has now come back
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - see DoC feedback
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - see DoC feedback
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - see DoC feedback
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 5.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 5.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.0 out of 5
- Overall: 5.0 out of 5
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 4.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 4.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 4.0 out of 5
- Overall: 4.0 out of 5
Comments
Must have for anyone considering any ML/DL job in academia/industry. Goes quite quickly through the whole landscape of research in DL, up to the most recent advancements. Very intensive coursework, and still a 50% exam, so not an easy module. First half explained better than the second, but that's also partially due to the second one covering much more difficult topics.
Imperial Module Page: here
Quick Summary
Average module scores from 1 respondants.
- Content: 5.0 out of 5
- Organisation: 5.0 out of 5
- Lecturer: 5.0 out of 5
- Overall: 5.0 out of 5
Comments
Very enjoyable, mostly not too difficult to follow
Imperial Module Page: here
No feedback available - I think it's a new module