Group 4.

PASS.  

Strengths: recognized the problem of multiple local minima. 

Strengths: Pros and cons analysis. 

Strength: considered a whole range of methods. 

Strength: Went outside the "standard" bunch. 


Presentation drawbaks: 

Always start with formulating the whole problem. 


Need to look for methods available in Mathematica. 

Did not consider the 1st part: did not talk about the toy model (beads on
strings or the lattcice model). 


Group 5. 

PASS. 

Strengths: 

Looked into the Energy functions. 

Thought about amino-acid composition. 

Looked "outside the box" (Ramachandran plot), stochastic differential
equations (right on!). 

Looked into Methods specific to Mathematica. 

Presented some Pros/Cons analysis. Mentioned time complexity.
 
Links to sources (papers cited, links). 


Gave a summary. 

Weaknesses: 
Always start with formulating the whole problem.

Do not use slang in formal presentations. 


Group 3. 

PASS

Strengths: 

Good simplification. 

Good graphics. 

Examples of foled chain. 

Formulated the challenge. 

An Analysis of numerical methods. 

Formulated open questions. 

How do we know we are done? Good question. 

Weakness: 

Always start with formulating the whole problem.

Stick to what's available in Mathematica. 


Group 2.

PASS  

Strengths: 

Started with the "Big Picture" question. 

Good graphics, the funnel.

Good starting point: from the simple model. 

Lattice model considered. 


Weaknesses: 

Locking in on one method at this stage, discounting other possibilities. 

No summary. 

Group 1. 
PASS. 


Strengths: 

Started with a simplification.  

Good graphics. 

Looked into the background. Several models. Stillinger's model. 

Energy function.  

Both parts analyzed (toy model + numerical). 


Weaknesses 

Chosen model is too complex for a toy model needed here.