Judges' Commentary 165 ecosystem in a single section of the paper, but to integrate this domain knowledge throughout the modeling process A second important facet of the problem was the ability to understand issues that impact water quality. Many teams created reasonable models of the species and their interactions but very few effectively modeled Modeling and Assumptions: The most popular models used were dif- ferential equations--usually linear for the simple cases and then expanding to include nonlinear terms. Simulation was also a popular approach to the problem. Often the models appeared appropriate but neglected any discussion of important assumptions. Additionally, many papers lacked a reasonable discussion of model development, instead presenting a series of equations and parameter values without support. Finally, the very best pa pers not only formulated the models well, but were able to use the models to produce meaningful results to address the problem and to make recom- mnenaatons Solution(Optimization): Perhaps the most distinct difference between the best papers and others was the ability to utilize their models to develop important portions of the problem in any substantive way--what should be done to remediate Bolinao and how to balance the water quality while he actual solution presented, in addition to the modeling approach asis on maximizing harvesting. As a result, the judges put additional empha Analysis/Reflection: Successful papers utilized the models developed in early sections of the paper to draw conclusions about the importantissues in addressing problems with the Bolinao ecosystem. For example, the impor- tant parameters were identified in terms of their impact on the water quality and the harvest available. In the best papers, trade-offs were discussed and, in truly exceptional cases, some sensitivity analysis conducted to identify potential issues with the solutions presented. Communication: The challenges of the modeling in this problem may have contributed to the difficulty many teams had in clearly explaining their so- lutions. Papers that were clearly exposited distinguished themselves signif icantly, emphasizing that it is not only good science that is important, but Iso the presentation of the ideas Discussion o of the Outstanding Papers Thetwo Outstanding papers eachhad features that distinguished themfrom the other submissions. Working under the time constraint, both teams were impressive in their ability to research the ecological issues, propose reasonable models, and to present their work in a clear and readable manner. This year, inJudges' Commentary 165 ecosystem in a single section of the paper, but to integrate this domain knowledge throughout the modeling process. - A second important facet of the problem was the ability to understand issues that impact water quality. Many teams created reasonable models of the species and their interactions but very few effectively modeled the water quality. " Modeling and Assumptions: The most popular models used were dif￾ferential equations-usually linear for the simple cases and then expanding to include nonlinear terms. Simulation was also a popular approach to the problem. Often the models appeared appropriate but neglected any discussion of important assumptions. Additionally, many papers lacked a reasonable discussion of model development, instead presenting a series of equations and parameter values without support. Finally, the very best pa￾pers not only formulated the models well, but were able to use the models to produce meaningful results to address the problem and to make recom￾mendations. "* Solution (Optimization): Perhaps the most distinct difference between the best papers and others was the ability to utilize their models to develop an actual solution to the problems. Many teams failed to address the most important portions of the problem in any substantive way-what should be done to remediate Bolinao and how to balance the water quality while maximizing harvesting. As a result, the judges put additional emphasis on the actual solution presented, in addition to the modeling approach. "* Analysis/Reflection: Successful papers utilized the models developed in early sections of the paper to draw conclusions about the important issues in addressing problems with the Bolinao ecosystem. For example, the impor￾tant parameters were identified in terms of their impact on the water quality and the harvest available. In the best papers, trade-offs were discussed and, in truly exceptional cases, some sensitivity analysis conducted to identify potential issues with the solutions presented. "* Communication: The challenges of the modeling in this problem may have contributed to the difficulty many teams had in clearly explaining their so￾lutions. Papers that were clearly exposited distinguished themselves signif￾icantly, emphasizing that it is not only good science that is important, but also the presentation of the ideas. Discussion of the Outstanding Papers The two Outstanding papers each had features that distinguished them from the other submissions. Working under the time constraint, both teams were impressive in their ability to research the ecological issues, propose reasonable models, and to present their work in a clear and readable manner. This year, in