GRADES IN YEAR 2003

1. 990 068 427
   HW1: 4 HW2: 5 HW3: 5 HW4: 5.
   HW5: 5.
   Your report is far insufficient, look to what I wrote to other group members. The next report must be much better, wider, deeper and detailed. Also, better written. Otherwise I will be not able to give good grade for HW.
   Midterm: 36
   Final: 39
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 62
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C
   Class location: 2
   
   
   
   
2. 990 071 638
   HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 5
   HW4: 5
   HW5: 5. Next time I definitely need more details of what you are doing. What are the pieces of software, how they are interconnected to one another. In your presentation each student has to tell about his work, not only generalities and the work of previous students. Your group has to prove understanding of previous work.
   Midterm: 27
   Final: 22
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 50
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
   Class location: 10
   
   
   
   
3. 990 072 622
   HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 3 HW4: 5
   HW5: 5.
   Midterm: 25
   Final: 32
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 51
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
   Class location: 9
   
   
4. 569 959 286
   HW1: 6 EXCELLENT HW2: 5 HW3: 6. EXCELLENT, PUBLISHABLE QUALITY WORK.
   HW4: 6. Very good.
   HW5: 6. Very good report. However, we do not have time for all "great" ideas. Now is time to work on the algorithm and allocate partial work to each group member. You already contributed "Bruce-Toffoli Gate" in ternary, that may become quite important if ternary quantum logic will catch up. So now just work on algorithms.
   Midterm: 31
   Final: 44. Very good.
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 67
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C+
   Class location: 1
   
   
5. 990 065 015
   HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 4 HW4: 4
   HW5: 4 (not enough detail to judge the project contents and quality.
   Midterm: 14
   Final: 26
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 38
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
   Class location: Lowest group.
   
   
6. 543 177 480
   HW1: 4 HW2: 5 HW3: 3 HW4: 5
   HW5: 5.
   Midterm: 37.
   Final: 38.
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 60
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C
   Class location: 4
   
   
7. 987 698 769
   HW1: 4 HW2: 5 HW3:5 HW4:5
   HW5: 5.
   Midterm: 27
   Final: 40
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 58
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C
   Class location: 5
   
   
8. 990 053 124
   HW1: 5 HW2: 4 HW3: 4 (not complete answers)
   HW4: 3 point (2) has a wrong set of symmetry indices.
   HW5: 3.
   Midterm: 33
   Final: 32.
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 52
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
   Class location: 8
   
   
9. 542 611 879
   HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 4 HW4: 3 See remarks to 990 053 124
   HW5: 5. Your writeup is complete, but there is not sufficient plan what exactly and how your group wants to accomplish.
   Since your midterm is not very good, your project and homeworks become even more important if you plan to obtain a good grade for this class. I expect the next time to obtain a "conference-quality" paper of what you want to do, including all previous work of PSU students. What they have done was good, but it was lacking any comparison of results. Now we definitely need such a comparison.
   Midterm: 18
   Final: 16. Weak.
   Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 49
   Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
   Class location: 11
   
   
10. YOur student ID?
    HW1: 1. You still are confused about SOP versus ESOP. Draw circuts for both. Are you using covering method for ESOP? Please explain.
    HW2: 4 HW3: 5
    HW4: 4. Ashenhurst decomposition is wrong.
    HW5: 4.
    Midterm: 12
    Final: 19
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 34
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: lowest group
    
    
11. 990 045 933
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 5
    HW4: 4.
    HW5: 3.
    Midterm: 24
    Final: 24
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 46
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 13
    
    
12. 990 056 627
    HW1: 4 HW2: 5 Your original function is strange, it can be completed without zeros at all. Therefore your stage of creating implicants with constant 1 is wrong. The function is always 1 if it is not 2. Change the example.
    HW3: 5 HW4: 5
    HW5: 5. Explain better what is in the Table from Maslov. Are there more tables in his thesis and papers? Try to find them all and explain in full detail in your paper. Write the report in a form of a conference paper - use Maslov and my papers as examples. You can re-use as much as you want from my previous papers with Khlopotine and others. But you have now to concentrate on algorithms and their numerical results. Use the extended gates that I introduced and remember that they cost the same as Toffoli, each of them. Do not work on templates at all. Your work should be for incompletely speficied logic, does Maslov work only on completely specified or also on incomplete? List all differences of your work and Maslov's work.l
    Midterm: 26
    Final: 16. Weak.
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 35
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: lowest group.
    
    
13. 541 178 733
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 2. Your solution with GTG gates is wrong. You seem not to understand the notation of permutations. (0,2) means that always 0 changes to 2, but also 2 changes to 0.
    HW4: 4 . You did not show the algorithmic systematic method to get Ashenhurst decomposition.
    HW5: 5. Please write a complete report of what you accomplished already and what you plan to accomplish until the end of 2003. Write it in the style of PHD chapters. Provide complete literature directly and indirectly related to the subject of your study.
    Midterm: 23
    Final: 36
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 41.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: lowest group.
    
    
14. 990 068 198
    HW1: 3 HW2: 5 HW3: 3 (you forgot about constants "1" in MIN elements. HW4: 5
    HW5: 5. The same remarks as to 990 056 627.
    Midterm: 27
    Final: 33
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 52
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 7
    
    
15. 990 055 709
    HW1: 4 HW2: 5 HW3: 4 HW4: 4. as it was requested?
    HW5: 5.
    Midterm: 18
    Final: 36
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 49.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 11
    
    
16. 990 069 674
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 2 HW4: 5
    HW5: 4.
    Midterm: 31
    Final: 33
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 54
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 6.
    
    
17. 990 061 940
    HW1: 1 HW2: 5 HW3: 5. A wire controlling GTG is missing. HW4: 5.
    HW5: 5. See above remarks to your group. Next time I expect much higher quality report. Your project, in contrast to some other in this class, is a typical CAD programming project. So good software and its documentation are of utmost importance. Software that is not well documented and tested is useless. You have to show comparison of results on the functions from Maslov WWW Page and also on new functions, incompletely specified. You may also extend the work to multi-output relations, like those that have --0 or {000, 011, 100} in a cell of Kmap, as possible choices. This is the most general formulation of don't cares, and nobody has done reversible synthesis for this kind of functions.
    Midterm: 27
    Final: 26
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 48
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 12.
    
    
18. 990 066 730
    HW1: 3 HW2: 5 HW3: 4 HW4: 4. Where is your final decomposed circuit?
    HW5: 5. Nice slides, good try, but I want to see examples of the fault model for quantum circuits, and how the tests are generated for this model to obtain high probability that the circuit is good or faulty. Assume that you have only one test for fault F. How many times this test should be repeated if the observed value is probabilistic to have , say 75% assurence that the circuit is faulty or good?
    Midterm: 27
    Final: 32
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 51.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 9.
    
    
19. 990 062 286
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 3. poor quality of scanning. Last solution is wrong since you take b two times and it is not possible to do fan-out in reversible logic. You need to use one more GTG gate for copying. HW4: 5
    HW5: 5.
    Your homework is far insufficient. As we discuss on Friday meeting, you have to delagate one person to be a technical writer. This person, based on material from each group member, will have to write a conference paper quality document. Other students have to start working on reports about their program components. Group leader has to be responsible to integrate the project pieces to one program and for testing. We have had many discussions and meetings with both group but I have not seen in any document of your group a complete reflection of our meetings and conclusions. Many good pieces appeared in some, but somebody has to put everything together as one report of the group. This, together with "conference paper" will help to write the final version of the conference paper.
    NEXT REPORT SHOULD HAVE DEFINITELY SOME COMPUTER RESULTS.
    Midterm: 20
    Final: 40
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 52.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 8.
    
    
20. 540 598 380
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 4.
    HW4: 5.
    HW5: 5. You gave me report on paper. I read it and I returned it to you with my remarks. Please read my comments to other members of both testing teams.
    Midterm: 16.
    Final: 38. Big improvement.
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 51.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 9.
    
    
21. 999 992 841
    HW1: 2 HW2: 4 HW3: 3. HW4: 2. Homework not completed. Ashenhurst decomposition not systematic. You created trees not decision diagrams.
    HW5: 5.
    Midterm: 20
    Final: 22
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 38.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: the lowest group.
    
    
22. 9900 58421
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 5 HW4: 5. Very good.!.
    HW5: 6. So far, your project report is the best in your two groups. But it is still far below what I expect for the next Project Homework and your class presentation. You should involve yourself more in the project work and collaboration with other team members.
    Midterm: 33
    Final: 37
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 61.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C.
    Class location: 3.
    
    
23. 352 640 686
    HW1: 3 errors, what is your email? HW2: 5
    HW3: 5.
    HW4: 5.
    HW5: 5. Your plan and literature choice is good. Next time, however, I expect a complete report based on literature and what you plan to do.
    Midterm: 21
    Final: 18
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 43.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 14.
    
    
24. 990 061 485
    HW1: 2 HW2: 4 HW3: 5.
    HW4: 5.
    HW5: 5. See above student comments. The same to you.
    Midterm: 24
    Final: 40, good, big improvement.
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 53.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered:
    Class location: 7.
    
    
25. 990 071 004
    HW1: 5 HW2: 5 HW3: 5 HW4: 5.
    HW5: 5. It is good that you performed the search of WWW for backtracking info. Try to find any slides or classes about A*, Depth-First, Tabu Search, Breadth First, widening search and all modern algorithms for search. Here may lay thhe source of our success. Plus in good evaluation function and good representation. I suggest PPRM as representation.
    Midterm: 33. Good result!! Involve yourself more into the project programming and writeup.
    Final: 39.
    Total recalculated to 60% (without project): 62.
    Grade that would be given if the project were not delivered: C
    Class location: 2.