数学建模总结（二）

Strength：

1.Outstanding papers included different aspects of the basic issues in their approaches and they all addressed the problem in a comprehensive way.

2.Read the problem statement carefully, looking for key words implying actions: “design,” “analyze,”“compare,”andother imperative verbs.

3.If the problem statement says that certain broad topics are required, begin by making an outline based on those requirements. Typical examples are statement and discussion of assumptions, strengths and weaknesses of model, and sensitivity analysis.

4.The teams that were most successful clearly shaped the problem that they would address. When presented with a problem with a very large scope, narrowing the focus is critical.

5.Judges were impressed with those who took a unique perspective on the problem. That could be either a different modeling approach (perhaps using a particular science, such as chemistry) or considering a different aspect of the problem (one example was a team that looked at how the plastic gets into the ocean). Original thought, as long as it was grounded in solid research, was cherished.

6.The sections of the report should follow naturally and not appear as completely separate sections or ideas.

7.The difference between the papers judged to be the top entries came down to the analysis of the subsequent models and the way in which the teams conveyed their results.

Weakness:

1.Some teams had sophisticated and potentially sound models but either failed to clearly present the models or failed to connect them to the science and use them in making recommendations.

2.It is pretty obvious in many weak papers how the work was spilt between group members, then pieced together into the final report.

3.Weak teams tend to use lots of equations and few words. Problem approaches appear out of nowhere.Outstanding teams explain what they are doing and why.