Author/Judge's Commentary 367 Author/Judge's Commentary The Outstanding Ai Irline Overbooking Papers William P. Fox Dept of Mathematics francis Marion University Florence. SC 29501 bfoxfmarion edu Introduction Once again, Problem B proved to be a bigger challenge than originally considered, both for the students and the judges The students had a wealth of information for the basic model from the Web and from other resources. Students could consider and refine the basic information to fit the proposed post 9-11 scenario The judges had to read and evaluate many diverse (yet sometimes similar pproaches in order to find the"" papers. Judges found mistakes--errors in modeling, assumptions, mathematics, and/or analysis--even in these"best papers; so it is important to note that"best"does not mean perfect. The judges must read and apply their own subjective analysis to evaluate critically both the technical and expository solutions presented by the teams No paper analyzed every element nor applied critical validation and sen sitivity analysis to all aspects of their model. Judges found many papers with the exact same model (down to the exact same letters used for the variables)and none of these clearly cited the universal source anywhere in the submission. The failure te properly credit the original source critically hurt these papers; it was obvious their basic model was not theirs but came from a published source Advice At the conclusion of the judging, the judges offered the following comments The LIMAP Journal23(3)(2002)367-372. Copyright 2002 by COMAP, Inc. All rights reserved Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial for components of this work owned by others than COMAP must be honored. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior permission from COMAP.Author/Judge’s Commentary 367 Author/Judge’s Commentary: The Outstanding Airline Overbooking Papers William P. Fox Dept. of Mathematics Francis Marion University Florence, SC 29501 bfox@fmarion.edu Introduction Once again, Problem B proved to be a bigger challenge than originally considered, both for the students and the judges. The students had a wealth of information for the basic model from the Web and from other resources. Students could consider and refine the basic information to fit the proposed post 9-11 scenario. The judges had to read and evaluate many diverse (yet sometimes similar) approaches in order to find the “best” papers. Judges found mistakes—errors in modeling, assumptions, mathematics, and/or analysis—even in these “best” papers; so it is important to note that “best” does not mean perfect. The judges must read and apply their own subjective analysis to evaluate critically both the technical and expository solutions presented by the teams. No paper analyzed every element nor applied critical validation and sen￾sitivity analysis to all aspects of their model. Judges found many papers with the exact same model (down to the exact same letters used for the variables) and none of these clearly cited the universal source anywhere in the submission. The failure to properly credit the original source critically hurt these papers; it was obvious their basic model was not theirs but came from a published source. Advice At the conclusion of the judging, the judges offered the following comments: The UMAP Journal 23 (3) (2002) 367–372.
c Copyright 2002 by COMAP, Inc. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice. Abstracting with credit is permitted, but copyrights for components of this work owned by others than COMAP must be honored. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior permission from COMAP