Understanding what sections of your paper are graded and how they are graded is crucial to the development of your paper. *This rubric is for 2015 ONLY.
AoCMM 2017
9.27 - 10.10
Number of teams: 124
Countries Represented: 21
Continents Participating: 5
Problems & Stats
Judging Perspectives
AoCMM 2017 Scoring Rubric
#692 - Alpha
#725 - Beta
#726 - Beta
#734 - Beta
#744 - Beta
AoCMM 2016
10.4 - 10.18
Number of teams: 118
Countries Represented: 24
Continents Participating: 5
Problems & Stats
Meet Winners
Judging Perspectives
AoCMM 2016 Scoring Rubric
#771 - Grand
#822 - Alpha
#824 - Alpha
#791 - Beta
#841 - Beta
AoCMM 2015
9.11 - 9.13
Prize pool: $5,678
Number of teams: 111
Countries Represented: 13
Problems & Stats
Meet Winners
Judging Perspectives
AoCMM 2015 Scoring Rubric
This paper demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the first contest problem, but the competitors need to further enhance their math skills in order to develop an effective model for this problem.
#864 - Honorable Mention
Using normal distribution, this model solves the problem in an easily understandable manner but lacks proper analysis. Better explanation and organization could largely improve this paper.
#905 - Gamma
With the unique computational Monte Carlo Simulation approach, this paper solves both of the problems effectively with only a few minor flaws. However, some sections can be further elaborated to improve this paper.
#863 - Beta
This paper showed clear details on how the solution is arrived at. It would be a good idea to go further in depth with the explanations by using only relevant examples and information. Fix description formats and errors, and the result will be a more polished submission.
#985 - Alpha
The paper is neatly organized with all necessary parts which leave a very good first impression. Both of the models use a theoretical approach to the problems and derive the solution from pure theory, clearly demonstrating strong mathematical knowledge in probability distributions and spherical geometry.
#890 - Grand