CMSC 451 Project 2
Project 2 involves writing an analysis of the results that you obtained in first project. You are to
submit a paper that discusses the results of your analysis. Your paper should include the
following items:
ï‚· A
ief introduction of the sorting algorithms that you have selected and how the two
algorithms compare including:
o High-level pseudocode for the sorting algorithms
o A Big-Θ analysis of the two algorithms
o An explanation of your approach to avoiding the problems associated with JVM
warm-up
o A discussion of the critical operation that you chose to count for each algorithm
with an explanation of why you selected it
ï‚· An analysis of the results of your study, which should include:
o graph of critical operations and execution times for both algorithms
o a comparison of the performance of the two algorithms
o a comparison of the critical operation results and the actual execution time
measurements
o a discussion of the significance of the coefficient of variance results and how it
eflects the data sensitivity of both algorithms
o how your results compare to your Big-Θ analysis
ï‚· A conclusion that summarizes the important observations of your study
If for any reason, it was necessary to revise the program you submitted in project 1, the revised
source code should also be included along with the paper.
Criteria
Introduction
Analysis
Concusion
Total
105 points
Contains
ief description of the.
sorting algorithms together with
Highevel pseudocode for the.
algorithms (30)
Contains co
ect Big © analysis
ofthe igorithms (30)
Contains an explanation of you
approach to vciding the problems.
associated ith JVM warm-up (30)
Contains 3 discussion of the
citcal operation that you chose:
to count with an explanation of
why you selected it 15)
150 points
Contains graph of critical
operations and execution times
for both algorithms (60)
Contains > comparison of the
performance of the two.
algorithms (15)
Contains > comparison of the
citcal operation results and the
actual execution time
measurements (30)
Contains 3 ciscussion of the
significance o the coefficient of
variation rests 3nd how it
eflects the data sensitivity of you
algorithm (15)
Contains 3 discussion of how you
ests compare to your 8ig:©
analysis (30)
45 points
Contains conclusion that
Summarizes the important
observations of your study (45)
Doss Not Mest Clarion Scare
points Js
Docs not contain a
ict
description of the sorting
slgorithms together with high
evel pseudocode for the
algorithms 0)
Docs not contain 3 corect BE ©
analysis of the algorithms 0)
Docs not contain an explanation
of your approach to avoiding the
problems associated with JVM
warmup (0)
Docs not contain a discussion of
the critical operation that you
chose to count with an
explanation of why you selected i
©
points /150
Docs not contain 3 graph of
critical operations and execution
times for both lgorithms (0)
Docs not contain 3 comparison of
the performance of the two
algorithms 0)
Docs not contain 3 comparison of
the critical operation results and
the sctual exceution time
measurements 0)
Docs not contain a discussion of
the significance of the cosfficient
of variation results and how it
eflects the data sensitivity of you
algorithm (0)
Docs not contain a discussion of
how your results compare to you
Big-0 analysis 0)
points I
Docs not contain a conclusion
that summarizes the important
observations of your study (0)
13200