Data Engineering at the University of Florida
Due: Week of April 20, 2026 (schedule TBA) Points: 150 Format: 10-minute presentation + 5-minute Q&A
The final presentation showcases your project to the class. You will present your research question, demonstrate your system, and discuss your findings. This is an opportunity to communicate your work to a broader audience and practice presenting technical research.
cis6930sp26-project/
├── presentation/
│ ├── slides.pdf
│ └── demo_notes.md (optional)
└── ...
| Section | Time | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | 1-2 min | Problem, motivation, research question |
| Approach | 2-3 min | System architecture and key design decisions |
| Demo | 2-3 min | Live demonstration of working system |
| Results | 2-3 min | Key findings with evidence |
| Conclusion | 1 min | Summary and takeaways |
Introduction (1-2 minutes)
Approach (2-3 minutes)
Demo (2-3 minutes)
Results (2-3 minutes)
Conclusion (1 minute)
| Criterion | Weight | Points | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content | 30% | 45 | Does the presentation cover essential elements? |
| Clarity | 25% | 37.5 | Is the presentation easy to follow? |
| Demo | 20% | 30 | Is the demonstration effective? |
| Delivery | 15% | 22.5 | Is the presentation professionally delivered? |
| Q&A | 10% | 15 | Are questions handled well? |
| Total | 100% | 150 |
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent - Conference-quality presentation |
| 4 | Good - Professional and engaging |
| 3 | Satisfactory - Gets the message across |
| 2 | Below Average - Hard to follow or missing elements |
| 1 | Poor - Does not meet basic requirements |
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Comprehensive coverage; clear problem, approach, and results; insights shared |
| 4 | Good coverage of all key elements |
| 3 | Covers basics but missing depth in some areas |
| 2 | Incomplete coverage; key elements missing |
| 1 | Does not adequately present the work |
Required Elements:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Crystal clear; excellent logical flow; complex ideas explained well |
| 4 | Clear and well-organized |
| 3 | Understandable but some confusing parts |
| 2 | Difficult to follow; organizational issues |
| 1 | Incomprehensible |
Guiding Questions:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Compelling demo; shows system working; highlights key capabilities |
| 4 | Good demo that supports the presentation |
| 3 | Demo present but could be more effective |
| 2 | Demo has issues or doesn’t illustrate key points |
| 1 | No demo or demo fails completely |
Demo Requirements:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Confident, engaging, professional |
| 4 | Good delivery with clear communication |
| 3 | Adequate delivery; some nervousness or pacing issues |
| 2 | Difficult to hear or understand; poor pacing |
| 1 | Unprepared or unprofessional |
Guiding Questions:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Handles all questions confidently; provides insightful answers |
| 4 | Good responses to questions |
| 3 | Answers most questions adequately |
| 2 | Struggles with questions; incomplete answers |
| 1 | Cannot answer basic questions |
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ TransitLLM: LLM-Orchestrated Smart City │
│ Data Integration │
│ │
│ Your Name │
│ CIS 6930 - Spring 2026 │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The Problem │
│ │
│ Smart city data is fragmented across portals │
│ │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ Transit │ │Utilities│ │ 311 │ │
│ │ API │ │ API │ │ API │ │
│ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ Different schemas, formats, quality levels │
│ │
│ → Manual ETL is time-consuming and error-prone │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ System Architecture │
│ │
│ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ LLM Orchestrator │ │
│ │ (planning, schema mapping, validation) │ │
│ └────────────────┬─────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ │
│ ┌────────────┼────────────┐ │
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌───────┐ ┌───────┐ ┌───────┐ │
│ │Transit│ │Utility│ │ 311 │ │
│ │ MCP │ │ MCP │ │ MCP │ │
│ └───────┘ └───────┘ └───────┘ │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Key Results │
│ │
│ Schema Mapping Accuracy │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Baseline (manual) ████████████████ 96% │ │
│ │ TransitLLM ███████████████ 94% │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ Development Time (hours) │
│ ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Baseline (manual) ████████████████ 16h │ │
│ │ TransitLLM ██████ 6h │ │
│ └────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ → 60% reduction in development time │
│ → Comparable accuracy │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
“Let me show you the system in action. I’m going to query the transit MCP server for today’s bus routes.”
Runs command
“You can see the LLM is now orchestrating the extraction. It’s detected that the transit API uses a different date format than our target schema.”
Points to output
“Here the LLM has automatically applied the correct transformation and validated the data quality.”
Prepare answers for:
presentation/ directory