Unable to view the PDF below?
Try a direct download.

# 822 Paper
# 822 Score Report

 Dear Team #822,
 
Overall, this paper was neatly organized and very detailed. The grammar, format, and style of the paper made it particularly easy to read. The comments in the code made it easier to read and understand. However, it would be better if the equations were labeled so that they could be easily referenced in other sections of the paper. Throughout the paper, many lengthy equations are often restated and sometimes detracts from the overall flow of the paper. If each equation were numbered and later referenced only by the number, the paper would flow better as the reader can easily reference that particular equation. Also, try to condense your summary as it is currently a bit lengthy. On a final note, all graphs should be in the same format. You can change the background color of your graphs to white in Matlab so they can look more professional.
  

The first problem is clearly restated and is based on sound assumptions and justifications. The various approaches taken to model the problem is also clearly stated. Your approach of using the “law of diminishing marginal utility” demonstrates the research and thoroughness taken to formulate the model. How you calculated based on k is especially creative. There are still a few things to keep in mind. For the first model, when you are calculating T(B)n, consider changing 0.05 to the poll’s margin of error since the poll size is much smaller than the total number of voters. Always avoid arbitrary numbers when you can do so. In addition, K’(zn) should be K(zn) in your definition for G(T(B)n). Another point of improvement in your paper could be in the conclusion section. The conclusion is slightly lengthy and repeats much of the technical language used in the paper. State your strengths and weaknesses in a separate section.

The solution to the second problem was perhaps the best solution your referee has reviewed. The clear statement of assumptions and variables as well as the multiple flow charts makes it easy to understand the formulation and application of the model. Simplifying the map of Manhattan into a grid-like matrix is a great idea. There are only a few aspects of the model that were not clearly explained. For example, it was stated that Dijkstra’s algorithm was used in the solution, but the algorithm itself was not clearly explained to the reader, who may not be familiar with this particular approach. It would be better to explain and review this model in more detail within the paper. You may also want to include some numerical conclusions in your summary.

Overall, your paper excelled in clearly restating the problem, laying down assumptions and justifications for your model, and formulating comprehensive models to solve the problem. However, slight improvements are needed in explaining, analyzing, and concluding the model so that people who are not familiar with your paper can understand.
 
Best,
Association of Computational and Mathematical Modeling