Added some notes regarding authors

pres.tex

@@ -49,12 +49,16 @@
 \frametitle{Authors}
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Marco Tulio Ribeiro, PhD from University of Washington, Currently a researcher for Microsoft
-  \note{lol}
+
 \item Sameer Singh, PhD from University of Massachusetts Amherst, adviser for Marco
 \item Carlos Guestrin, Professor at University of Washington, adviser for Marco
 \end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
-
+\note[itemize] {
+\item This paper won the Audience appreciation award
+\item These also wrote \say{Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning}
+\item Marco's research focus for his PhD was making it easier for humans to understand and interact with machine learning models.
+}
 %\subsection{Publishing}
 
 \begin{frame}[fragile]{Metropolis}
@@ -70,7 +74,9 @@
     \end{itemize}
   \end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
-
+\note[itemize] {
+  \item Main take-away is that this paper was shown at a respected conference
+}
   \section{Article}
 
   %\subsection{Problem}
@@ -402,7 +408,7 @@
   \end{frame}
 
   \section{Experiments}
-  %\subsection{Simulated User Experiments}
+  \subsection{Simulated User Experiments}
   %\subsubsection{Setup}
   \begin{frame}
     \frametitle{Experiments}
@@ -505,7 +511,7 @@
     \item Accomplished by "marking" the artificial features found within the B instances seen, as unstrustworthy. We then evaluate how many total predictions in the validation set should be trusted (as in the previous section, treating only marked features as untrustworthy).
     \item SP-parzen and RP-parzen are omitted from the figure since they did not produce useful explanations, performing only slightly better than random. Is this ok?
   }
-
+  \subsection{Human user experiments}
   \begin{frame}
     \frametitle{Human evaluation setup}
     \begin{itemize}
@@ -629,4 +635,9 @@
     \item It shown to make it significantly easier for people to better the classifiers, even non-experts.
     \end{itemize}
   \end{frame}
+
+  \begin{frame}
+    \frametitle{Discussion}
+    
+  \end{frame}
 \end{document}