START for team team10 A Judge said Original idea for a game. BASIC code, not documented. Report skimpy. But I'd like to see it. END of judge A Judge said - Written in 1st person--did only 1 person particpate?? - No comments in code - No display of results - How to prove it works?? END of judge A Judge said Sounds like a good programming experience; report doesn't tell enough about results and methods; a lot of work on coding; code should be commented so it would be easier to follow. END of judge A Judge said No question that the team learned a lot - about programming, and particularly about game programming. On the other hand, they make no bones about the fact that their main concern was writing a game which would be graphically interesting; they were definitely not trying to explore how computers can be programmed to play games or perform other complex tasks. Thus, the computer program is doing little more than providing a game "space", and keeping track of the ongoing game for the human players. END of judge A Judge said I am not particularly impressed with game playing programs for this Challenge, but this seems like a pretty impressive effort, assuming a demo looks good. There is a lot of coding here, which looks like theirs. The write up is skimpy. END of judge A Judge said The final paragraph eludes to some code for "training". It would be interesting to read more about this portion of your work. END of judge A Judge said Substanial code. No solid results or issue of coding or science studied. They seemed very proud of their code. END of judge END for team team10 START for team team17 A Judge said Basically a report on black holes. Very little computing. END of judge A Judge said - Decent research - No results or code END of judge A Judge said Basic science report; needs computational and computing components. END of judge A Judge said Interesting problem, but the team appears not to have progressed much beyond basic research on the internet. This is one of the (many) teams for which the key result is that they learned a fair amount about the underlying problem. A very desirable result, but not necessarily one which makes effective or interesting use of computational techniques and resources. END of judge A Judge said This effort is more like a small science project. Their investigation was good, but there was apparently no computation. END of judge A Judge said Nice start -- I would like to see something like the gravitational effect of a black hole on the orbits of close objects.. That would give you something that would be computationally challenging END of judge A Judge said Found orbital mechanics equations. Learned basics of black holes. No computational needs. END of judge END for team team17 START for team team18 A Judge said PacMan - a small program and not successful. END of judge A Judge said - Weak editing - No results - No comments in code - Didn't do anything, as far as I can tell... END of judge A Judge said This project looked like it was a lot of fun putting it together. Detrmination in getting the program to work. Hard work does pay off in the end. END of judge A Judge said On second glance, I would say that this one has more underlying merit than I saw at first. Statistics-based "learning" is actually one of the handful of AI techniques which has realized a substantial portion of its early promise, and the team (given the necessary time and computing resources) could end up with something pretty interesting. As it stands, however, I place them at the bottom of my "maybe" pile. END of judge A Judge said Again, I am not fond of games for this challenge, but this team did have an interesting idea: to learn from the human player's tendencies so as to predict where to catch him. It is not clear they came very close to the goals... I think the complexity of the task got in the way. It would take some serious explaining to me to convince me this was a "YES" paper. END of judge A Judge said It would have been interesting if you had written on how you would have used the statistics to select directions -- I would like to see the details of the algorithm that you were considering. END of judge A Judge said Nice pac-man history. Code poorly developed due to school un-pluging the internet. END of judge END for team team18 START for team team19 A Judge said Limited scope well to just NM; Involves a lot of data, little program that seems to produce a lot of data. Not sure how much was output though. Good report of virus. END of judge A Judge said - Superb report--my number 1!! - Great research - Great writing--better than many I saw in the Air Force - Lots of work & time - Code has excellent comments & easy to follow END of judge A Judge said Very good work. Well put together. A lot of thought and effort into the project. Nice conclusion. END of judge A Judge said This team put together some interesting and concerning information. The research appears to have been quite involved. It appears that this project could continue and become a new project with many other variables yearly. END of judge A Judge said Relatively simple program and project but appears to be done well. Excellent job on reporting. END of judge A Judge said This project was very well done. Very thorough with good results and easy to read. END of judge A Judge said Outstanding results, analysis and coding. END of judge A Judge said I saw this one in the interim reviews; I liked it then, and it's even better now. Their basic research is good, and presented clearly. The assumptions contained in their mathematical models are made explicit in each case (one complaint there is that the models are not presented symbolically), and then revisited in the conclusions and recommendations. Results are presented in a comprehensive manner; even the program code is of pretty good quality, considering the presumed level of experience. While the recommendations for parallelization of the various computation steps don't really take any special advantage of supercomputing architectures, they could be implemented in a very portable manner, to take the analysis to the next level of capabilities. END of judge A Judge said Perhaps the top paper I read (I read over half of them). Impressive and current and important idea. Serious simulation with real data on mosquitos, crows, etc. The programming involved seems modest in size compared to game codes, and it is not clear that large computing facilities would help this effort. Is that important?? The quality of the write-up was exceptional. It might be worth asking if the adult advisors had a large hand in it. END of judge A Judge said I thought this was a very well done project and the report was exceptionally thorough in explaining the basis behind the mathematical models used. END of judge A Judge said A lot of background information and good graphical reports. I am interested in more detail on the mosquito model that you used. There were no mathematical models present in the final report. What sort of equations did you use? END of judge A Judge said A huge, massive amount of effort on a comprehensive "government" style report. Very well researched. I am usure of how they performed their computations, and I don't want to sift through every detail of their code. I would have liked an equation based description of the models used. They did a science project that used a computer to do calculations, not really a supercomputer project. END of judge END for team team19 START for team team20 A Judge said Definitely a CS project; I would like to learn more about this; They tested and compared their result. discussed future work. Good project. END of judge A Judge said Very useful application of computing. END of judge A Judge said - Very good--my #2 so far - Good organization - Weak editing - Great Conclusions - Great Recommendations - Good definition of relevance of a webpage -- (was a weakness in interim presentation) - Need to show and summarize results better END of judge A Judge said Would like to see this. END of judge A Judge said Interesting idea. This project has come a long was since Glorieta, when they wanted to write a search engine to replace Google. There tests are good and the report is very thorough. END of judge A Judge said Excellent final report, coding and analysis. Nice GUI. END of judge A Judge said While I admire the ambitions of these young men, it seems to me that the approach they have taken has willingly ignored what has been learned about the whole question of "relevance" on the internet, and practical ways to address it. What they are left with is no more than a database, along with code that parses pages to populate the database. This parsing code is what the project hinges on, but that is where the relevance problem rears its head, and they have no clear way of dealing with it. END of judge A Judge said Interesting and current idea. Not clear on a brief reading if they accomplished much of their goal. Looks like a lot of code was produced, though VBasic may be greatly expanding the size. END of judge A Judge said The team tackled a computationally significant problem, used a reasonable relevance algorithm, and did a good job of isolating and understanding the various contributions to indexing time. END of judge A Judge said Nice start -- I am interested in the algorithms that you found on the internet for the search portion. Also, does it matter how you structure the data in the SQL database to improve the search algorithm's performance? END of judge A Judge said Web searching is an issue of modern computing. They did a complete job creating a searching tool. A lot of work. No evaluative or comparitive efforts in the project. Hard to tell how well it worked. END of judge END for team team20 START for team team23 A Judge said Storyboard, don't see how it fits with supercomputing. very little code, if any. END of judge A Judge said - Unfortunately, the weakest project I've reviewed so far - Little effort and few results END of judge A Judge said This could end up being a great project in elementary and special education, but the team has neither the ambition nor (currently) the skill to tackle a serious computing project. END of judge A Judge said Looks like they just developed an idea a bit. END of judge A Judge said What would you do to involve the supercomputer? END of judge A Judge said Team didn't clearly state the project, science, accomplishments, etc. END of judge END for team team23 START for team team34 A Judge said Given what's known about pressure and molar mass, why bother? END of judge A Judge said Did not go far enough in the evaluation END of judge A Judge said - Simple project, but at least completed - Some basic errors in statements/interpretaions of formulas - Graphics are too "fancy"--the bar/triangle graphs don't line up well and distract from main points shown by the bar heights END of judge A Judge said Excellent results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said A fun idea, but very little use of computing resources, beyond implementation of a simple physics formula. END of judge A Judge said This group just computed pressure in a backetball if fixed weights of various gases are used. The computation is most suited for a hand calculator. At least their program works. END of judge A Judge said It would be interesting to see how the ball deflects when it comes into contact with the floor... A supercomputer would be useful in that case. END of judge A Judge said I maintained an e-mailed correspondance with this team as they were starting their project. Therefore I'm obligated to abstain. END of judge END for team team34 START for team team35 A Judge said Compare simulation to actual rockes, but concentrates more on rocket building and flying them, then programming. END of judge A Judge said - Very ambitious - Give 'em credit for building a rocket - But the computing is not demonstrated END of judge A Judge said next year? END of judge A Judge said I actually enjoyed the description on the testing and approach; could be convinced to move this to a "maybe"; didn't provide good description of science, formula, etc. END of judge A Judge said Another project which would have been better as a Physics class project. Additionally, the team members may well find that, if and when the software is implemented in HTML & Javascript, rocketry enthusiasts eat it up. But as articulated, the problem and solution are rather limited for an AiS application. END of judge A Judge said This write up is too short to evaluate well. I was amused by the first line in the write up: "This project is progressing slowly, but surly (sic)." END of judge A Judge said It would be interesting to see how a wind would affect the flight of the rocket, especially if you had different layers of winds and directions END of judge END for team team35 START for team team36 A Judge said Not supercomputing, robotic engineering. No code. END of judge A Judge said - No results - No code END of judge A Judge said next year? END of judge A Judge said Very ambitious; clearly, however, the team was unable to make any significant headway, and has no clear idea how the project would be furthered through the use of supercomputing resources. In any event, the project is better suited to a different sort of competition (e.g. one which focuses on robotics or wireless communications). END of judge A Judge said Nice idea, no progress. END of judge A Judge said You have an intesting report, but it would be good to think how a computer might be used to help solve something similar to your project END of judge END for team team36 START for team team37 A Judge said Proves it is not a practical idea to mine asteroids yet. Code undocumented. END of judge A Judge said - Code is OK with comments - Math has errors in it END of judge A Judge said next year? END of judge A Judge said Very basic; have taken first steps END of judge A Judge said Fun problem, and the problem articulation (and solution approach) is suitable for a physics or astronomy class project; but - as stated - it is too simplistic for serious AiS contention. END of judge A Judge said A "NO", but at least this team wrote up their math a little bit. Most teams seem to way too little about their algorithms. END of judge A Judge said What kind of affects would take place when the asteroid came through the atmosphere? END of judge END for team team37 START for team team38 A Judge said Executive summary not updated, no program, just a report. END of judge A Judge said - Is this the interim report? Seems like something nis missing - No code - How do you know about damage to eyes? END of judge A Judge said next year? END of judge A Judge said Not enough info to make a good assessment; couldn't determine how the students reached their conclusions. END of judge A Judge said Interesting underlying problem, but solution approach is very simplistic, and does not make effective use of computing resources. END of judge A Judge said Not really a computing project... but they at least got an understanding the danger levels of various classes of lasers. END of judge A Judge said Simulating laser light through different density material would be interesting... END of judge END for team team38 START for team team39 A Judge said Compared 2 math models for population...changed them with no discussion why. Random variables? END of judge A Judge said - Straighforward & completed project! END of judge A Judge said Didn't understand the application and use of random factors; introducing random weighting to a problem must have a basis for application when the weighting impacts outcome directly. END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said Another potentially interesting project hampered by a very simplistic approach, where it seems that the computational aspect was almost an afterthought - a glorified calculator. END of judge A Judge said NO, but the idea of combining population growth estimates with all kinds of possible impacts is interesting. END of judge A Judge said A more complex population model called Fox and Rabbit could be used to give a more detailed simulation of population growth END of judge END for team team39 START for team team41 A Judge said Did not give equations in report until conclusion. Not organized well. Very simple program. END of judge A Judge said - Little code - No real results END of judge A Judge said Interesting but ... . Jim Hall had an AeroME degree from Cal Tech. END of judge A Judge said Conclusions assertions don't appear to be supported by the work; not sufficiently developed END of judge A Judge said Another fun project which would be much better suited to a physics class, where the computer could be used as a ready tool for demonstrating the resultant outputs from a wide variety of inputs. But not a contender here. END of judge A Judge said To0 small an effort. But it looks they learned something about aerodynamics. END of judge A Judge said Does the perfect drap spoiler change for different speeds, density of air, and car type? END of judge END for team team41 START for team team42 A Judge said Limited variables in roller coasters. Did not describe equations. Had figures. If I had to choose one from Las Cruces, this is the only one. END of judge A Judge said - Terms are not clear. A diagram explaining terms would have been very helpful - Where did definition of waht is safe and comfortable on roller coasters come from? -- What is comfortable or safe for one person might be dramatically different from mine. -- Is there and industry accepted standard? Not clear from report - Not enough detail - No prooof in the results END of judge A Judge said Interesting ideas but poorly written, and some numbers don't make sense. END of judge A Judge said Very good results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said Did not receive a copy of this report END of judge A Judge said Another trivial computation problem, where the computer is acting as a simple calculator. It's too bad; had the team extended its reach a bit (e.g. looking at other ride elements - banked turns, spirals, etc. - and their relationship to minimum and maximum safe speeds), this could have been a fun one. END of judge A Judge said Too small an effort. Maybe simulating the forces over an entire ride, with an idea to assessing whether the forces are dangerous, would be impressive, if they want to extend the idea. END of judge A Judge said Not a complex computational model. How would the side winds affect the roller coaster? Would there be some changing winds effects that might make the system unstable? END of judge A Judge said Computer used to calculate a simple single equation. No research done to "find" the solution. Paper wrote as if solution handed to them from omnipotent source. END of judge END for team team42 START for team team44 A Judge said This is a deterministic algorithm - not AI at all. Essentially a search algorithm. END of judge A Judge said - Exec Summary doesn't really say what they did in the project - Planning for next year, but not much this year END of judge A Judge said Students reduced and simplied the problem so they could get a handle on it. Have a working model/code. Not sure it is sufficient to rate a "Yes" END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, animation and coding. Very illustrative "Game Sample" and nice graphics. END of judge A Judge said Sorry, but this isn't AI; at best, it's an implementation of a very specific heuristic, for a very limited type of game. Not a contender. END of judge A Judge said I only read this briefly. If there is a deeper idea involved than appears on the surface it might be a good paper. I like papers that actually get a working simulation going, as they did ... even if it is simple. To be a top paper requires a little bit more in results I think. END of judge A Judge said How would a supercomputer help you solve your proposed problem? END of judge A Judge said A very simple AI. Moved randomly, and did not move in a spot if it was occupied. END of judge END for team team44 START for team team45 A Judge said Monte Carlo simulation of winning hands compared to statistical answers. USe of supercomputer explained. Results tables, big program, documented code. END of judge A Judge said - Very good report & project - How many players play? Not clear. - Good code - Need better explanation, but Monte Carlo process and comparisons are good - Who computed probabilities with the mathematical formulas on combinations--the students? -- Or did they get them from a standard book on poker? Not clear END of judge A Judge said This appears to me to be real supercomputing, unlike many of the others. Also, I'm impressed that they checked their results against analytic/combinatoric probability theory. By the way, a couple of Dick Feynman's grads did something like this for vertical wheels, in the 50's, and it worked, until they got thrown out of Las Vegas. END of judge A Judge said While this is a simple project, I liked it. Good sciencitic method used; students validated outcomes. Working code. END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, coding and results. END of judge A Judge said A nice little project to demonstrate Monte Carlo simulation, but without discussion of wider applicability (e.g. into problems that could not be addressed analytically - as poker hands certainly can). A good second-semester Comp Sci project, but not an AiS contender. END of judge A Judge said Could you have found symmetry in your problem to reduce the number of possibilities? END of judge END for team team45 START for team team46 A Judge said just plotting data? just a report. END of judge A Judge said - No code, no results??? END of judge A Judge said No significant computational component to this project; interesting topic but not sufficient computing/math END of judge A Judge said Important and interesting underlying problem, and the team has done a lot of good research. Unfortunately, the subproblem addressed computationally boils down to little more than the graphical display of a few basic measures. I truly wish the team had not been hobbled by the lack of readily available data for formulating and testing the much wider hypotheses with which they started. END of judge A Judge said Are there other factors in calculating cancer rates? Age, food, occupation? END of judge END for team team46 START for team team47 A Judge said Not original, but does use supercomputer. Code documented. END of judge A Judge said Very well done. Should finish in top 6. END of judge A Judge said - Pretty good - Need summary table of results, or something similar, to more clearly express results/findings END of judge A Judge said This team picked a VERY hard project. Their report was weak, but their code was good. I was impressed that they were able to locate as many twin primes as they did. If their report was stronger and more thorough, this vote would have been a "Yes". END of judge A Judge said It surprised me that this is the only number-theory-related project in the competition. But it's a good one: a problem which can be expressed simply, but which cannot be solved analytically; a solution approach which can also be expressed simply, and which can be scaled to take advantage of multiprocessor architectures. The background included in the report would have been more complete, had it included some sense of the manitude of the current largest known twin primes; similarly, the conclusions section would have been more complete, had it given some (platform independent) estimate of the processing work which would be required to equal this feat. END of judge A Judge said Nice start -- handling large integer values is the key to making this a very difficult (computationally speaking) problem. END of judge END for team team47 START for team team49 A Judge said some programming, not clear how they got data about guitar strings. Original. END of judge A Judge said - No results - Code's OK; comments OK END of judge A Judge said END of judge A Judge said When I saw this one in the interim reviews, the team was a bit fragmented - in the presentation, as well as in the aims of the project. The latter have been narrowed down a bit, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Also, the team has clearly learned a lot in this project. But we are still left with a project which is no more than an illustration of a few mechanics formulae; the team has not had the opportunity to do even the most basic physical experiments, to see how their mathematical models might need to be adjusted for the real world (e.g. where strings of increasing diameters begin to show some of the characteristics of vibrating rods). A cool project for physics class - or extra credit in a music class. Not an AiS contender. END of judge A Judge said I would be interested in the modeling of the motion of the string as it is plucked and goes to a stable state. END of judge END for team team49 START for team team50 A Judge said Nice organization. Not original. Assembly code and justified using it. Described math. END of judge A Judge said BEST OF SHOW!!!! END of judge A Judge said - Needs more explanation of the results, but... - The math and the programming are brilliant. - Shows lots of promise END of judge A Judge said Well put together. Good background information to introduce the subject. Good use of the scientific method. Results and conclusion very good. END of judge A Judge said Successful project; good work on science and program; good reporting; didn't actually see that they un-encrypted text but will assume that they did. END of judge A Judge said Similiar to the Serpent algorithm that was submitted to the same AES competition to as Rijindeal, but different enough to be a very interesting project. Impressive! END of judge A Judge said Outstanding report, results, theory and analysis. END of judge A Judge said This one made me want to dig in and do an analysis of the covered algorithms - even though I am not that interested in the encryption field itself. It's a pretty good treatment of a complex subject, though (somewhat understandably) lacking in coverage of the underlying mathematical theory. The report lays out a very clear roadmap of the project, and then does a good job of revisiting, in the results and conclusions, the key points. The team members show a very good understanding of performance issues and optimization techniques relevant to the Intel CISC family architecture; treatment of more general high-performance architectures (vector computing, SMP, etc.) is missing. END of judge A Judge said This report does a very good job of summarizing the mathematical foundations of the encryption algorithm they studied, the approach used for developing an efficient algorithm, and tests done to determine where to concentrate on optimization. END of judge A Judge said It is not clear if the AES algorithm uses the bits from the left and right for computation. If you use bitslicing, you will also have to fold the results back to the left and right to complete the AES algorithm. How do you prove that your algorithm is AES? END of judge A Judge said Report needs better organization END of judge A Judge said Report is not clear on how the "quality" of an old string is entered into a computer. No clear results presented. END of judge END for team team50 START for team team53 A Judge said Did not discuss program very much; Java - not documented well. END of judge A Judge said - Weak editing - Very simple formula & very simple problem... - But still not a completed project END of judge A Judge said Basic calculator problem in its present form. END of judge A Judge said Clearly, the team has done a lot of research on the underlying phenomena and current practices; unfortunately, what shows up in the computing approach is pretty pedestrian. END of judge A Judge said Please explain your mathematical model more in the final report. Are you using any existing population models that take in multiple paramaters to determine population, or just death and birth rates? END of judge END for team team53 START for team team54 A Judge said Validated against Barnes' result (Who is Barnes? Not in references) Documented code; VISUAL output. END of judge A Judge said - Where did formulas for lensing come from? - Explain better what Einstein Angle is - Need table of Results - Code looks good END of judge A Judge said Did not receive a copy of this report END of judge A Judge said Interesting topic, but the employed approach is a demonstration of the gravity lens effect, rather than a demonstration of the reverse: how the measurement of displacement of light from stars might be used to detect the existence and location of a black hole. Too bad, since the latter would have been a much more compelling candidate for supercomputing resources. END of judge A Judge said I thought this was a nicely done project in which the team did a good job of trying a range of black hole placements and explaining their results. It is not clear how much of this was original or to what extent the team understood the details of gravitational lensing. END of judge A Judge said Would the stars move over time towards the black hole? Would their movement affect the pat to the black hole -- like an N-body model? END of judge END for team team54 START for team team56 A Judge said Queue simulation; did not describe math models; not documented code; END of judge A Judge said - Good concept - Weak editing - Research page is too short--not much there - Poisson formula appears to be incorrect - No numerical results presented END of judge A Judge said This one is near and dear to my heart, as I did traffic simulation projects in grad school. This one is very limited, but it has most of the right ingredients to be the tip of a good iceberg. END of judge A Judge said Nice start -- you may want to look at queueing theory models to help with trafic predication. END of judge END for team team56 START for team team58 A Judge said Describe assumptions and math models. END of judge A Judge said - Weak editing - Page 2--wrong application of Newton's 3rd Law - Page 7--Conclusion about ideal rocket velocity is too much of a stretch, based on the work shown - Code is good, with comments END of judge A Judge said Good project report. Well put together lots of information. Good use of mathematics and computer program. Good effort and use of variables. END of judge A Judge said Simple problem but students did necessary reserach to solve their problem; constructed a working program; a couple of the conclusion/findings were weak (not supported) END of judge A Judge said This project took a simple problem and solved it in a comprehensive fashion. I was impressed by their depth. END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results, coding and analysis. END of judge A Judge said Fun stuff, especially given that the underlying formulae are not typically covered in high school physics. But virtually all of their conclusions can be obtained analytically, directly from the formulae; the program is no more than a demonstration of the formulae. END of judge A Judge said I would be interested in the instanteous change in weight as the rocket expended fuel -- how does that affect velocity and the real determination of fuel needed for LEO. END of judge END for team team58 START for team team59 A Judge said Worked with UNM; not a complete report. Undocumented code. No results? Original. END of judge A Judge said - Math is fine - Explanations are good - Report appears to be an interim?? No results?? - Conclusions: "Need to add some info here" What gives? - Code appears OK, with decent commenting - What are results? END of judge A Judge said Fairly basic project and problem; appears to understand science and has working code. END of judge A Judge said This project is thorough and goes though all of the right steps to come to a conclusion. END of judge A Judge said The report - although incomplete - is a good introduction to the underlying physical principles of intertia and centripetal force. The subproblem addressed is reasonably well-stated, and handled well in the code. The graphical output adds a lot to the results. As it stands, however, this would be a better demonstration program for an AP physics class, than an AiS contender. On the other hand, the path to the future outlined in the Recommendations sections could lead the team into some analytically tricky waters, requiring more interesting computational work. END of judge A Judge said The reports seems to be incomplete especially sections 3.2 and 4 END of judge END for team team59 START for team team68 A Judge said Interesting problem. Did not describe math equations. END of judge A Judge said The quality of this work is impressive, especially when you consider it was done by a middle school team. Much better than many of the projects by high school teams. END of judge A Judge said - False assumption about the entire nitrate seeping into groundwater, page 3 - Page 5: Didn't want to deal with the facts; chose instead to stress their biases. - Ditto on Page 8 - Code seems OK; decent commenting - Results section is consistent with assumptions. The results did not "confirm your beliefs" - This project is a classic case of someone ignoring the scientific method and instead slanting the study toward their pre-disposed biases. Some facts about partial seepage and industrial safeguards appear to be easily available, but students chose to ignore them. I attribute this to the "It must be true because I want to believe it" school of education END of judge A Judge said Math/formulas not adequate to solve even a basic problem in this area; project needs more development END of judge A Judge said This is a very good project. If they had done a few more cases in their code instead of just worst case, it would have been a definate yes! END of judge A Judge said Another team that has done a lot of research on the underlying problem, but has then crippled their project with an overly restrictive scenario, and seemingly without much thought towards how the approach might be broadened. END of judge A Judge said It is not clear what your mathematical model is? Do you have any different diffusion rates in the ground depending on the ground's composition? END of judge A Judge said Very nice report but missing math model END of judge END for team team68 START for team team71 A Judge said Worked with UNM; well researched; undocumented code; impressive. Is this a continuation of a project from last year? Sounds familiar. END of judge A Judge said Should finish in top 6. END of judge A Judge said Excellent work, good recovery in selecting gene 22 vs gene 21. Well put together. Good use of resources and program. END of judge A Judge said I was not sure exactly how much the students accomplished on this; obviously they did a good deal of work on background and research but I am not sure how much was actually accomplished toward the final goal. END of judge A Judge said This is a very strong and complex project with interesting results. END of judge A Judge said Excellent final report, theory, coding and analysis. END of judge A Judge said The ambition of the team is awesome, and their understanding of the underlying problem and overall context is far beyond mine. I suspect that, if I understood the problem space better, I would have no problem putting this project on my Yes list. Code comments: Surprisingly good usage of STL, given their relative inexperience with C++; on the other hand, the code in some parts reveals the lack of programming practice (which is to be expected). As stated in the report, they have been unable to get their code working as an integrated whole; I will leave it to those who understand the problem space better than I to make an assessment of whether this is due to the model not matching sufficiently the physical world, or run-of-the-mill code bugs. I'm very open to being convinced that this team should be in the top group. END of judge A Judge said The team did an excellent job of explaining the scientific significance of the project they attempted. Although some work is still needed on the implementation of the Dynamic Smith-Waterman algorithm, they were able to complete the gist of the project using other existing code. I would like to know more about the two cases in which it failed and how the team discovered those cases. END of judge A Judge said Not clear to me the computational model used. END of judge A Judge said More comments in program, flow chart needed. END of judge A Judge said A computationally challenging problem. The report shows careful, complete scientific research of the problem, and many advanced skills in analyzing data. Although the code is just short of being completed and the executive summary was ackward, the team did a lot of good science. I'd like to hear more from them. END of judge END for team team71 START for team team73 A Judge said No documented code; seems little has been done since interim. END of judge A Judge said This project had lots of potential to end up with a very useful tool for the high schools and other applications. I was disappointed that the team really did not follow through and do a better job. END of judge A Judge said - Exec Summary gave no results - Report gave no results, no code, no computing... END of judge A Judge said Looks like a good foundation for next year. It would be interesting to see them include wall absortion, and, or course, the 3rd dimension. END of judge A Judge said No working code or model END of judge A Judge said Another interesting problem in acoustics from Santa Fe High, with a different approach chosen. This is one of the few cases I saw where - according to their report - the team actually expanded the problem scope along the way, after recognizing that the original aim would have resulted in something too limited to be of any practical value. For me, what distinguishes this one from the other SFH acoustics project is that the approach taken in this case is one which takes good advantage of computing resources, and which - with additional resources, and work along the same lines - could be made much more general. END of judge A Judge said How will the computer be used? What is your computational model? END of judge A Judge said Nice principle for research. The report needs to indicate results of the computation to be a viable compeditor. END of judge END for team team73 START for team team75 A Judge said Interesting problem. Do not describe math equations or proram in report. END of judge A Judge said They developed a nice tool that will benefit from a much larger database. END of judge A Judge said - Report provides "projected results", but no real ones?? - Code looks OK, but does it work? Not shown - Need to provide examples of the computing END of judge A Judge said Good project - no surprise that others are working on it - maybe next year with TN collaboration END of judge A Judge said Poor report; no research results or outcome/details; not enough info to tell what they have accomplished END of judge A Judge said An ambitious, interesting project. Possibly without knowing it, the team has constructed a problem-specific inference engine; probably because of this lack of awareness, the implementation is certainly not constructed as it would have been with such an awareness. Also, without that awareness, there is no clear articulation of what additional horsepower could add. It will be very interesting to see what this team does with the problem, as they get the opportunity to interact with others working in similar veins. END of judge A Judge said The computational solution is an automated look up table for the benefit of the user. A need exists and they will write a software package to deliver the answer, similar in principle to Electrofishing (team 93). END of judge END for team team75 START for team team76 A Judge said Cellular automaton. END of judge A Judge said - Exec Summary should include some results - Define lattice gases - What do results show? Not clear or explained END of judge A Judge said Working code and digital graphics, but very standard type of student problem. END of judge A Judge said Basis of a good project but not far enough along to be considered END of judge A Judge said A well-articulated, albeit modest, problem, with a well-constructed solution. But without ambition to extend the problem (or the solution approach), and the research backing it up, this is better suited to a physics class demonstration. END of judge A Judge said NIce start -- a more comprehensive interaction model would be interesting. END of judge A Judge said A good computational model for a physical problem. The idea could be taken much further. Showed simple results. END of judge END for team team76 START for team team78 A Judge said NO code? Math models not described; Unsuccessful in creating code. END of judge A Judge said - Describes 2nd forula as very hard to do--it's not - No results shown END of judge A Judge said Standard but useful class of problem Just getting started; no code or results shown Some useful reading indicated Poorly written END of judge A Judge said Cool underlying problem, but the actual specialization tackled is very limited (as the team acknowledges), and the team does not seem to have a clear idea of how (beyond comparison of results with those of physical experiments and other studies) they could have taken their approach further. END of judge A Judge said How would the power of supercomputer be used in a project similar to the one you submitted? END of judge A Judge said No results presented. END of judge END for team team78 START for team team79 A Judge said Assumptions to limit scope. Original, interesting problem. Code undocumented. END of judge A Judge said - How realistic is a "flat sand dune" ? - Good try at this project, but maybe overly ambitious - Results should be provided in a table or chart END of judge A Judge said Challenging, interesting problem Think I have seen some of this before Well written Essentially no code or results Possible excessive mentor contributions END of judge A Judge said A pretty cool project, albeit extremely limited in scope. The ambition to model entire dunes, using the same approach, is almost certainly naive in the extreme; the approach would almost certainly have to be modified (and probably a great deal), even with supercomputing resources. END of judge A Judge said Nice project, but where would a supercomputer be used? Are there interactions between sand grains that might cause your results to be different if you had a more complex model? END of judge A Judge said Calculates trajectory including air drag. Results and code were small. Scientific content is strong. END of judge END for team team79 START for team team80 A Judge said I did not receive this report. END of judge A Judge said Code. Did not describe algorithm in report. END of judge A Judge said - Liked the iterative solution to programming - Exec Summary should include some results - Appendix B is equations, not data - Code is well-commented - Need to show results, even for the simpler model chosen END of judge A Judge said Interesting, challenging pbl., but probably not very new Sufficient code shown, for plug in formulas, not simulation Only a yes or no result shown for particular parameters Well written I would vote "yes" on this one if anyone knows anything a little more positive. END of judge A Judge said Project needs more development; presentation of results very limited. END of judge A Judge said Good presentation of the underlying problem, with assumptions and simplifications in the selected subproblem made explicit. However, given the report that the mathematical model formulae exhibit serious instability, and the peculiar nature of magma velocity formula (not only are units not specified, as stated in the report, but variables of different dimensions are summed, divided, added, and assigned), this could not even be responsibly used as-is, as a geology class project demonstration. No question that serious computing resources could be applied to this class of problem; as stated now, however, the program is simply a straightforward calculation of a number of formula, based on user-supplied variable values. END of judge A Judge said It is not clear what mathematical model you are using and how a supercomputer is really useful in this situation. END of judge A Judge said Iterative solution. Could have shown more results. Discussed some unphysical results. Clear presentation. END of judge END for team team80 START for team team81 A Judge said Unlike the solar system simulation project (#9), this is a problem which can be solved analytically (though that is beyond the Calculus abilities of most high-school students); solved numerically, it is mostly useful for generating graphic path plots. Not a contender. END of judge END for team team81 START for team team88 A Judge said Mathematica to visualize C++ output. Cellular automaton, moves hosts, but they don't die? Output? END of judge A Judge said - How is smallpox passed--airborne or touch or both? This is an important question fundamental to your model that you did not explain - Page 4: Why is -1/0/1 model of movement chosen, and not decimals? - This model of a random walk does not appear to me to be useful in describing spread of smallpox: -- It shows only the path of one individual (or a few) -- The graph of many individuals would be one dark, circular blob--not helpful - People don't move randomly - This project used no info about the actual transmission of smallpox - Code is OK, with decent comments - Good graph of random walk - App 3 is good - Good graphics & charts END of judge A Judge said More impressive on the second read. The team has tackled a very important problem, with a creative approach (cellular automata continue to have a wide variety of applications), and some interesting results; still, they see the significant limitations (partly due to horsepower) of their approach, and have begun to explore analytical and computational methods which would allow them to extend the project beyong the immediate scope. END of judge A Judge said This team didn't get far enough to be a "YES" paper. They mostly coded a random walk, and the coding is small. But to their credit their recommendations are more thought out than most papers. END of judge A Judge said Although I didn't think the results of the project were strongly related back to the spread of smallpox, the report did a nice job of explaining cellular automata, executing and visualizing random walk results, and suggesting combining the current model with a Markov model to handle changes in state. END of judge A Judge said It would be interesting to see how the infection moved over time with several factors. END of judge A Judge said Good report on disease spread. Models 3 bodies moving with a random walk on a 2D plane to simulate disease spread. Displayed solid results. Very thorough report for a simple c++ code. END of judge END for team team88 START for team team90 A Judge said Documented code, no output. END of judge A Judge said I liked this one because it displays out-of-the-box thinking and applies computing to facilitate the thinking process. END of judge A Judge said - Exec Summary should include main results - They understood the limitations of their results--great!! - Need table of results - Does code work? Can't tell from report.. - Need comments in the code END of judge A Judge said Project is very interesting and thorough. Students used MPI (on theta) to complete their project, which makes it more complex than some of the others. END of judge A Judge said Fascinating problem and approach; what is missing (besides more work) is a strong argument to connect (beyond the intuitive level) what is essentially a low-level personal interaction model (even if it were implemented according to Roeland Hancock's original aims) with the much more complex forces at work within cultures. I'd love to see Hancock carry this work forward into his university studies. END of judge A Judge said The final report is not clear on the mathematical model used nor are the results made clear. END of judge A Judge said Good report, truely parallel, very useful END of judge A Judge said GA idea is good. Good understanding. Neat idea. Honest conclusion. I'm interested in hearing more. Missing appendix C referenced in results section. Hard to see what they did (mentioned in conclusions). Already started analyzing issues of implimenting on a parallel archetecture using MPI. Worth considering. END of judge END for team team90 START for team team91 A Judge said Original, results. Describe math models, have figures. END of judge A Judge said They developed a nice tool which will benefit from a much larger database. END of judge A Judge said - Great idea for a project! - Exec Summary is excellent--probably best I've seen - Presents good info on comparing males/females -- Should have done the same for BMI Ranges & Age groups - Statistical software, such as SAS or Mathematica, would have been better to do this analysis. Or even Excel - Are the different injury rates statistically significant between Male/Female, BMI, and Age? -- Or are the differences simply due to random variations present in small samples? -- This would have been best presented as a study of statistical correlations, or as an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) -- Good start , though END of judge A Judge said Nice project. Good introduction, good use of variables. Easy to read and nice use of computer program. Nice conlusion. END of judge A Judge said Calculator problem; incorrect science; incomplete project END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said Interesting problem, and a good project for a class in physiology, or one in basic statistics. Beyond that, we are left with something that could be executed more simply in Excel. END of judge A Judge said How would a supercomputer be used in this type of project? END of judge A Judge said Mainly a user interface to a database. Results are not from the computer program. END of judge END for team team91 START for team team92 A Judge said I don't see the point, when Quipu wasn't accurate? How is this supercomputing? END of judge A Judge said This was my favorite project of all those submitted. I hope it finishes in the top 6. I like it because I like out-of-the-box thinking, and this is certainly in that category. Most of us are used to thinking in terms of decimal or binary terms, but there are other ways of compiling data, as the Incas showed, and as the computer model demonstrates. Out-of-the-box thinking is where large breakthroughs occur, and this is where we need to encourage the studens to go. END of judge A Judge said - Are there any results here?? - Does the code work? Can't tell from report - Very little commenting in code END of judge A Judge said Not clear on how program related to problem description; no output END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results and coding. Please keep working on this project and add the visualization that is needed. END of judge A Judge said This is material for a great project for a class dealing with the history of pre-Colombian South America. Reading the report, I want to know more about the Quipu. But computationally, the project is rather trivial. END of judge A Judge said HOw would a supercomputer be useful in this project? END of judge A Judge said Interesting to learn about the Incas. Topic chosen doesn't lend itself to presenting results or conclusions. END of judge END for team team92 START for team team93 A Judge said Interesting, original problem. Validated results in field using the program. END of judge A Judge said They developed a nice practical tool, even though it does not have a strong supercomputing aspect to it. END of judge A Judge said - Weak editing - Code appears to work - Decent commenting in code - Need table of results END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results, coding, analysis and practical application. END of judge A Judge said An interesting subject, about which I knew nothing before reading the report. And it certainly seems to be a useful application - I would recommend that the team members port it to the PalmOS, where it could become useful for field biologists. But computationally pretty vanilla, and the code itself indicates that the team has not yet appropriated some very basic programming concepts. END of judge A Judge said The statistics used to come up with the parameters for the elector-system would have been interesting. How does a supercomputer help in your project? END of judge A Judge said Where did they get algorithm for fish shocking. They focused on a scientifically useful code for field biologist. The code itself is very simple. Nice narative. END of judge END for team team93 START for team team94 A Judge said Interesting original problem. Lots of validity problems though. END of judge A Judge said Out-of-the-box application for computing. END of judge A Judge said - A-4 chart--I don't see any correlation here --Doesn't support the hypothesis, as claimed -- Where are the stats that could answer the claim? - The median score range is not 34-38, if there 57 people below this "median" and only 17 below this "median". Look up the defintion of median - Need to cmpute some correlations. Or better yet, do this study as an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) - Statistical analysis is weak and does not support the conclusions drawn END of judge A Judge said Students display the basics of being social science researchers. I liked their approach, just not sufficient computing to be a 'Yes' for my taste. END of judge A Judge said Excellent report, results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said An intriguing subject, and I am impressed by the creative approach. But much better suited to a psychology class, or a basic stats class, than a project focused on computing (and supercomputing) applications. END of judge A Judge said How would supercomputer assist in your project? END of judge A Judge said Survey data from 116 students. Used actual (no web based) resources !!! Code collected the data, spreadsheet analyzed the data. The symbol analysis reported in the code does not apear to be the result of their own research, rather it was from a book. More scientific than I expected after a first glance, but still not a finalist. END of judge END for team team94 START for team team95 A Judge said Describe math models. Good topic for supercomputing. END of judge A Judge said - Exec Summary is well-organized & complete - Liked the idea ofinterfacing Excell grpahics with the output from your C++ program--superb! - A-5 refers to graphs, but not present - A-1 & A-2 graphs atre good representations of Otto & Carnot - Your results claiming this program can be used for specific diagnostics of specific car problems--it's quite a stretch END of judge A Judge said Good work on the two engines and the variables. Good use of variables. Good job on programming. The conclusion was useful and informative. Good use of scientific method. Good report. END of judge A Judge said Manageable project; students seem to understand what they are doing; have working code and output. END of judge A Judge said I have enjoyed reading this report. Excellent results and analysis. END of judge A Judge said A pretty interesting project, and a very thorough and well-written report. The team demonstrates a good understanding of the mathematical models used, and their limits in real-world applications. The only thing missing for me here - unfortunately, a big thing - is "what next"; the results and conclusion are presented as being very final. For example, there is no discussion of how the approach might be modified (with the possible addition of more computing horsepower) to address more complex issues of engine configuration and design. Given the aims of AiS, this slides this project from my Yes pile to my Maybe pile. END of judge A Judge said The mathematical models were well described. The results could have been presented more completely and visually. END of judge A Judge said How would a supercomputer be useful in your project? END of judge A Judge said They have studied the thermodynamics far beyond what most HS students know. More study of their project is needed to determine the effetiveness of their approach. Original & interesting. Tested computer by hand calculations, coding mostly for the user. END of judge END for team team95 START for team team96 A Judge said No code. END of judge A Judge said - In the Exec Summary, where is the computing described? - What are the energy consumption and production models used in this project?? - What about known energy reserves and future exploration - Conclusion are not supported END of judge A Judge said Formulation of problem is very limited in scope, with computing resources being used as no more than a calculator. Final report does not quote or otherwise incorporate any program output in support of conclusions. END of judge A Judge said An excerpt of your code would be useful How would a sueprcomputer be used in your work? END of judge A Judge said Computer code is not an integral part of the science. Computational approach is therefore not needed. A nice book report on oil, coal, gas and nuclear power. END of judge END for team team96 START for team team103 A Judge said Just a report, no code. END of judge A Judge said - No results, no code, no computing... END of judge A Judge said These kids should be encouraged to continue next year. By then there will probably be more available on the subject. I could maybe even find them a mentor. This is one of the greater scandals of 9/11, and they do seem to have laid a background foundation. END of judge A Judge said No supporting documentation or computational basis for conclusion. END of judge A Judge said I would be interested in the equations you used to determine the stress and heat relationships. END of judge A Judge said No research or computer program was reported on in the paper. END of judge END for team team103