Assignment A2 Gradescope rubric
General marking principles (all questions) Code and discussions should be pitched at an
appropriate level, based on concepts and principles as introduced in the course materials. Marks
may be reduced for excessively verbose or overly technical implementations or discussions, or for
excessively commented or overly documented code. Marks may be significantly reduced for
discussions which do not align with associated code or output. Marks may be reduced for poor
scholarship.
1.1
6: Comprehensive comments which clearly and correctly describe all elements of the code.
5: Intermediate mark
4: Comments which describe all or almost all elements of the code, with the majority of key
elements described correctly.
3: Intermediate mark
2: Brief comments which describe at least a few elements of the code correctly.
1: At least one relevant comment.
0: Substantially incorrect or incomplete.
1.2
10: A comprehensive investigation of the problem. A clear and complete discussion which
includes appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, is fully supported with
numerical evidence, and which draws appropriate conclusions from the numerical evidence.
The discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output with appropriate formatting. Code is
clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to understand.
9: Intermediate mark
8: Intermediate mark
7: A good investigation of the problem, but the investigation may be more limited in scope.
The discussion is generally clear, draws appropriate conclusions, and includes some
appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, but may be lacking in a small number of
aspects. A small number of conclusions may be overly strong, or may not be fully supported
by numerical evidence. The discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output, which may
be lacking in a small number of aspects. Code is generally clear, concise, well formatted, and
easy to understand, but may be lacking in a small number of aspects.
6: Intermediate mark
5: A more limited investigation of the problem, perhaps failing to adequately investigate some
important aspect of the problem. The discussion makes some relevant points, but a number of
points may be unsupported by appropriate mathematical arguments or numerical evidence. At
least one relevant conclusion is drawn. The discussion is supported with at least one relevant
plot/output, which may be lacking in a number of aspects. Code may be lacking in a number
of aspects, and may be difficult to understand from a brief review of the code.
4: Intermediate mark
3: Intermediate mark
2: At least one relevant calculation is performed. There is a minimal discussion, which makes
at least one relevant point.
1: Intermediate mark
0: Substantially incorrect or incomplete.
2.1
20: A comprehensive investigation of the problem. A clear and complete discussion which
includes appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, is fully supported with
numerical evidence, draws appropriate conclusions from the numerical evidence, and includes
relevant discussion of robustness or performance. The discussion is supported with
appropriate plots/output with appropriate formatting. Code is clear, concise, well formatted,
and easy to understand.
19: Intermediate mark
18: A detailed investigation of the problem. The discussion is clear, draws appropriate
conclusions, includes some appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, includes
some discussion of robustness or performance, but may be lacking in a small number of very
minor aspects. The discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output, which may be
lacking in a small number of very minor aspects. Code is generally clear, concise, well
formatted, and easy to understand.
17: Intermediate mark
16: Intermediate mark
15: A good investigation of the problem, but the investigation may be more limited in scope.
The discussion is generally clear, draws appropriate conclusions, includes some appropriate
mathematical arguments where relevant, includes some discussion of robustness or
performance, but may be lacking in a small number of aspects. A small number of conclusions
may be overly strong, or may not be fully supported by numerical evidence. The discussion is
supported with appropriate plots/output, which may be lacking in a small number of aspects.
Code is generally clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to understand, but may be lacking
in a small number of aspects.
14: Intermediate mark
13: A good investigation of the problem, but the investigation may be more limited in scope,
with some gaps. The discussion is generally clear, draws appropriate conclusions, includes
some appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, includes some discussion of
robustness or performance, but may be lacking in a number of aspects aspects. Some
conclusions may be overly strong, or may not be fully supported by numerical evidence. The
discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output, which may be lacking in some aspects.
Code is generally clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to understand, but may be lacking
in a small number of aspects.
12: Intermediate mark
11: Intermediate mark
10: A more limited investigation of the problem, perhaps failing to adequately investigate
some important aspect of the problem. The discussion makes some relevant points, but a
number of points may be unsupported by appropriate mathematical arguments or numerical
evidence, and discussion of robustness or performance may be more limited. At least one
relevant conclusion is drawn. The discussion is supported with at least one relevant
plot/output, which may be lacking in a number of aspects. Code may be lacking in a number
of aspects, and may be difficult to understand from a brief review of the code.
9: Intermediate mark
8: A limited investigation of the problem, perhaps failing to adequately investigate important
aspects of the problem. This discussion makes relevant points, but may not be adequately
supported by mathematical or numerical evidence, may contain a number of errors, and may
incorrectly or inadequately discuss robustness or performance. Code may be lacking in a
number of aspects, and may be difficult to understand from a brief review of the code.
7: Intermediate mark
6: Intermediate mark
5: Some relevant calculations are performed, supported with a minimal discussion which
makes at least one relevant mathematical point.
4: Intermediate mark
3: At least one relevant calculation is performed. There is a minimal discussion, which makes
at least one relevant point.
2: Intermediate mark
1: Intermediate mark
0: Substantially incorrect or incomplete.
3.1
24: A comprehensive investigation of the problem. A clear and complete discussion which
includes appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, is fully supported with
numerical evidence, and draws appropriate conclusions from the numerical evidence. The
discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output with appropriate formatting. Code is
clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to understand.
23: Intermediate mark
22: Intermediate mark
21: A detailed investigation of the problem. The discussion is clear, draws appropriate
conclusions, includes some appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, but may be
lacking in a small number of very minor aspects. The discussion is supported with appropriate
plots/output, which may be lacking in a small number of very minor aspects. Code is
generally clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to understand.
20: Intermediate mark
19: Intermediate mark
18: A good investigation of the problem, but the investigation may be more limited in scope.
The discussion is generally clear, draws appropriate conclusions, includes some appropriate
mathematical arguments where relevant, but may be lacking in a small number of aspects. A
small number of conclusions may be overly strong, or may not be fully supported by
numerical evidence. The discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output, which may be
lacking in a small number of aspects. Code is generally clear, concise, well formatted, and
easy to understand, but may be lacking in a small number of aspects.
17: Intermediate mark
16: A good investigation of the problem, but the investigation may be more limited in scope,
with some gaps. The discussion is generally clear, draws appropriate conclusions, includes
some appropriate mathematical arguments where relevant, but may be lacking in a number of
aspects aspects. Some conclusions may be overly strong, or may not be fully supported by
numerical evidence. The discussion is supported with appropriate plots/output, which may be
lacking in some aspects. Code is generally clear, concise, well formatted, and easy to
understand, but may be lacking in a small number of aspects.
15: Intermediate mark
14: Intermediate mark
13: Intermediate mark
12: A more limited investigation of the problem, perhaps failing to adequately investigate
some important aspect of the problem. The discussion makes some relevant points, but a
number of points may be unsupported by appropriate mathematical arguments or numerical
evidence. Relevant conclusions are drawn. The discussion is supported with relevant
plots/output, which may be lacking in a number of aspects. Code may be lacking in a number
of aspects, and may be difficult to understand from a brief review of the code.
11: Intermediate mark
10: Intermediate mark
9: A limited investigation of the problem, perhaps failing to adequately investigate important
aspects of the problem. This discussion makes relevant points, but may not be adequately
supported by mathematical or numerical evidence, may contain a number of errors, and may
incorrectly or inadequately discuss robustness or performance. Code may be lacking in a
number of aspects, and may be difficult to understand from a brief review of the code.
8: Intermediate mark
7: Intermediate mark
6: Some relevant calculations are performed, supported with a minimal discussion which
makes at least one relevant mathematical point.
5: Intermediate mark
4: Intermediate mark
3: At least one relevant calculation is performed. There is a minimal discussion, which makes
at least one relevant point.
2: Intermediate mark
1: Intermediate mark
0: Substantially incorrect or incomplete.