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

# 985 Paper
# 985 Score Report

Dear Team #985,
 
First of all, your name or any other personal identification information should never appear on anywhere of your paper. This practice ensures that all papers are fairly graded without bias.
   
Your solution to problem one was enjoyable to read and contained some interesting ideas. A great step by step derivation clearly showed how you arrived at your conclusion. However, it would have been better if an applicable mathematical solution was provided. Your explanation of the model was concise but slowly became vaguer as the paper progressed. Further clarification of the later stages could make your paper more easily understood. How well you present your answer is just as important as finding it, and it is recommended to dedicate large amounts of time strictly to writing the paper.

The paper is neatly organized, with all the formulas clearly labeled. It could be strengthened by adding a list of variables and assumptions. Additionally, try to avoid directly using Wikipedia as your reference. You could do this simply by referring to the sources being referred to on Wikipedia.
 
Your summary mentioned that the model would take in two matrices and return one matrix, yet the real model only takes in one matrix. For the example you used to explain section 1.4, it is important that you finish the example by showing what test difficulty matrix will be returned for this set of student abilities. It would be even better if you could illustrate how the output matrix indeed returns a histogram that is similar to normal distribution.
 
The solution to problem two contained several pleasing and appropriate graphics. It had a unique page design and presented a clear math proof with few errors. As suggested for your first problem, problem two can also be improved by identifying and elaborating on assumptions within the sections they are introduced in as opposed to explaining them throughout different sections. Also, it would be good to include a section listing the variables used in the model and a brief description of each variable.
 
In addition, some parts of your model were not clearly explained. For instance, formula 11 was never used anywhere in your paper. The first model that states the range a satellite can cover had a description that was not clear in meaning. For instance, “three equally spaced orbit” was one of the phrases that added to confusion as opposed to clarifying the formula. Some of the equations are not correctly labeled, which makes your paper harder to read. The conclusion section of your paper should also specify how many satellites are needed for your system in order to directly answer the problem.
 
In summary, your paper showed clear details on how you arrived at your solution. It would be a good idea to go further in depth with your explanations and models by using only relevant examples and information. Fix description formats and errors, and the result will be a polished paper.
 
Best,
Association of Computational and Mathematical Modeling