2018美赛A评审要求

Triage Judging Notes

If you find a paper you are assigned to read is missing, damaged or incorrect, note the paper number and notify your head judge so that COMAP can check for the correct paper.

If you find that a team included any distinguishing information such as school name or student names, read the paper as normal and grade as normal, but add a note to the comment column (e.g. “includes school name on page xxx,” “includes student name on page yyy”).

If you find that a paper has gone over the assigned paged limit, read the paper as normal and grade as normal, but add a note to the comment column (e.g. “paper exceeded the assigned page limit”).

Triage judges are encouraged, but not required, to include comments on their grading sheet. It could be as simple as a few words (e.g. “great assumptions”), or a sentence justifying the papers score (e.g. “fatal logic flaw on page zzz”).

Poor documentation or potential plagiarism issues:

Papers that appear to fail to cite the work of others that they use, that copy and paste images without attribution, or that include blocks of text or equations copied and pasted without attribution should be identified by triage judges for review by the triage Head Judge. Triage judges should read and score papers as if there were no documentation errors.

If evidence of a failure to cite in the paper is substantial and the material copied is supportive of the team’s mathematical modeling effort, an UNSAT score should be assigned to the paper by the triage Head Judge. If evidence of a failure to cite in the paper is minor and the material copied is not supportive of the mathematical modeling effort, a 1-2 point penalty can be applied by the triage Head Judge consistently for incidents of similar occurrence.

Details that specifically describe the documentation issue (place in the paper the suspected work appears, and the source the material appears to come from) must be included as comments along with the numerical score in the event of either a penalty or a recommendation of unsatisfactory.

Scoring Guidelines. Scores are assigned to each

Interpretation

MCM submission by triage judges consistent with

the following scale. Score

0 Paper has explicit evidence that the team violated

MCM rules, or has no obvious mathematical content

related to the problem chosen. (Note: requires MCM

Contest Director review)

1-2 Paper contains significant omissions (e.g. key

modeling steps, documentation, required contents

such as 1 page MCM Summary Sheet, 1-2 page brief

assessment report), errors (e.g. incorrect use or

application of math technique, poor exposition or

report organization), violations of the 20 page

maximum limit, or other faults that will prevent the

paper from being competitive for consideration of

top honors.

3-4 Paper represents a complete modeling effort as

defined by MCM but has errors or is lacking in

sufficient detail that will prevent it from being

competitive for top honors.

5-6 Paper represents a complete modeling effort as

defined by MCM with innovative and correct

application of mathematical techniques. However, it

also appears to contain a small number of noticeable

detractors or errors that could prevent it from

receiving top honors, but will require a closer and

more detailed examination during Final Judging to

confirm.

7 Paper contains a very high quality and complete

modeling effort, clear exposition, and treatment of

the modeling problem in a manner that clearly

distinguishes it from other team efforts. A paper in

this category is competitive for top honors at Final

Judging.

Problem Specific Guidance

The problem statement specifically defines four parts to the problem:

1. “Develop a mathematical model for this signal reflection off the ocean.”

2. “Determine the strength of the first reflection off a turbulent ocean and compare it with the strength of a first reflection off a calm ocean.”

3. “How do your findings from Part I compare with HF reflections off mountainous or rugged terrain versus smooth terrain?”

4. “How does your model change to accommodate a shipboard receiver moving on a turbulent ocean? How long can the ship remain in communication using the same multi-hop path?”

5. “Prepare a short (1 to 2 pages) synopsis of your results suitable for publication as a short note in IEEE Communications Magazine.”

All of the parts are directly related to the first part, which is to develop a mathematical model for signal reflection off of the ocean capable of analyzing signal degradation due to turbulence in the surface. How a team models a turbulent ocean surface will be a key element of this problem. The question also includes a specific requirement to determine the maximum number of hops before a signal degrades beyond a usable signal to noise ratio. If a team does not address these questions, then they are missing key components:

? A team that does not present a clear model for signal reflection off of the ocean should not receive a score greater than 2. This determination should be clearly stated, and the teams should clearly state and describe how they arrived at this number.

? A team that does not determine the maximum strength of the first reflection off of a calm ocean should not receive a score greater than 2.

? A team that does not adjust their model to accommodate a turbulent ocean surface and then compare the strength of a first reflection on this surface to a calm ocean surface should not receive a score higher than 2.

? A team that does not determine the maximum number of hops before the signal to noise ratio is too great should not receive a score greater than 3. This determination should be clearly stated, and the teams should clearly state and describe how they arrived at this number.

? A team that does not provide citations as well as references for the resources used to develop their model should not receive a score greater than 4.

The second part requires the team to use their model to compare reflections off of mountainous or rugged terrain compared to smooth terrain. This aspect was introduced into the problem to change the fundamental nature of the reflection medium from

one involving ocean water to one involving terrain and vegetation. In order to receive credit for addressing this part a team should complete the following:

? Clearly describe this aspect of the problem. This includes providing citations and references to relevant resources.

? Explicitly discuss sources that were used to determine how HF signals reflect off various terrain. They should mention the kinds of terrain they examine.

? Explicitly discuss and describe how HF signals reflect off various terrain.

? Explicitly state and compare their previous results to the new results.

Teams that do not address these questions are missing important components:

? A team that does not use their model to determine how signals reflect off of rugged terrain as well as smooth terrain should not receive a score greater than 3.

? A team that oversimplifies the problem by assuming that terrain-based reflections behave the same as ocean water reflections should not receive a score greater than 3.

? A team that does not explicitly discuss their results and compare them in a clear way they should not receive a score greater than 4.

The third part requires the team to use their model to determine how a ship moving on a turbulent ocean will use HF communications. In order to receive credit for addressing this part a team should complete the following:

? Clearly describe this aspect of the problem. This includes providing citations and references to relevant resources.

? Explicitly describe how their model is adapted to this new scenario.

? Explicitly describe how the model was used to answer the questions.

? Explicitly state their basic assumptions.

Teams that do not address this question are missing key components that are needed to assemble a complete modeling effort: ? A team that does not adapt and describe a model to describe the communications for a ship moving in a turbulent sea should not receive a score greater than 4.

? A team that does not explicitly discuss the changes in the model necessary to adapt their original model then the team should not receive a score greater than 4.

? A team that does not explicitly discuss the length of time a ship can remain in communication on the same multi-hop path then the team should not receive a score greater than 4.

The final part requires that the team provide a concise overview of their approach suitable for publication as a short note in IEEE Communications Magazine. This magazine is globally available and has a specific acceptable writing style easily gleaned from a quick review of its content. This last problem requirement is important to the problem as it requires the team to identify the central ideas of their approach and describe them in broad terms.

? A team that overlooks this important aspect should not receive a score higher than a 3.