Prepared by Sergei Glebov, Team «Isolenta» Task №5 Prepared by Sergei Glebov, Team «Isolenta»

Our team: - Polina Parinova(капитан) -Angelina Zhuravleva - Ilia Vasiliev -Sergey Glebov -Maksim Shilihin -Elisaveta Zarezina

Task №5: Invent Yourself: IYNT grades An upwards of four thousand grades that Jurors have given in Science Fights of previous four IYNTs can reveal properties and hidden regularities of the IYNT grading. Suggest an interesting hypothesis that concerns the IYNT grades and test it with real data from previous IYNTs.

Our condition of the problem Explore the estimates of IYNT 2016. On the basis of the observed patterns, derive a general hypothesis that allows you to predict the estimates of the next steps with sufficient accuracy using the data from the previous ones. Check it with the IYNT 2015 ratings, confirming or disproving it.

Structure of Research: Our aim: To suggest an interesting hypothesis that reveals some properties and hidden regularities in the exposed grades for IYNT and to test it on real grades from the past IYNT; Our objectives: 1) To consider the grades exposed for the IV IYNT (2015/16); 2) To determine the regularity (s) of their exposure and put forward the hypothesis of rating on the IYNT; 3)To Confirm or refute the hypothesis, using data on the grades of the IYNT (2014-2015);

Solution of the problem Since there were a lot of grades, for convenience of analysis it was decided to create tables, divided by the stages of the tournament (Intro, SF 1, SF 2, SF 3, SF 4, Semi- Finals, Finals). The tables provide data on the average ratings, the roles of speakers, teams.

Representation of Teams Name Grade Teams Pahonia 6.5 Farhang 7.8 Croatia 6.3 Free Thought 6.9 Georgians 7.3 Paramount Notion 7.6 Voronezh Maple Black Intelligence  Khashayar Velayat 18 6.8 Mehr Amordad 18 7.2 Gifted 6.0 Besat 1 7.0 Besat 2 18 6.1

SF 1(Reviewers) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 6.9 Farhang 6.3 Croatia 6.5 Free Thought 5.7 Georgians 7.9 Paramount Notion 6.2 Voronezh 5.0 Maple 5.4 Black Intelligence  7.6 Khashayar 8.5 Velayat 18 4.3 Mehr 6.6 Amordad 18 Gifted 7.7 Besat 1 Besat 2 18 6.1

SF 1(Opponents) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 14.9 Farhang 10.6 Croatia 13.8 Free Thought 5.5 Georgians 12.1 Paramount Notion 2.6 Voronezh 12.4 Maple 10.9 Black Intelligence  11.3 Khashayar 12.6 Velayat 18 12.9 Mehr Amordad 18 9.1 Gifted 15.6 Besat 1 Besat 2 18 12.2

SF 1(Reporters) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 19.7 Farhang 16.7 Croatia 22.7 Free Thought 17.2 Georgians 20.0 Paramount Notion 19.9 Voronezh 14.2 Maple 16.3 Black Intelligence  18.8 Khashayar 21.1 Velayat 18 15.7 Mehr 17.7 Amordad 18 14.4 Gifted 16.1 Besat 1 18.2 Besat 2 18 17.0

Semi-finals(Reviewers) Name Grade Teams Pahonia 6.2 Farhang - Croatia 8.3 Free Thought Georgians 6.7 Paramount Notion Voronezh 4.8 Maple 3.8 Black Intelligence  Khashayar 7.2 Velayat 18 Mehr 6.0 Amordad 18 Gifted Besat 1 5.3 Besat 2 18

Semi-finals(Opponents) Name Grade Teams Pahonia 14.5 Farhang - Croatia 13.0 Free Thought Georgians 15.1 Paramount Notion Voronezh 9.5 Maple 13.6 Black Intelligence  Khashayar 14.8 Velayat 18 Mehr 10.9 Amordad 18 Gifted 10.8 Besat 1 9.3 Besat 2 18

Semi-finals(Reporters) Name Grade Teams Pahonia 21.8 Farhang - Croatia 18.8 Free Thought Georgians 23.2 Paramount Notion Voronezh 19.5 Maple 14.0 Black Intelligence  Khashayar 24.7 Velayat 18 Mehr Amordad 18 Gifted 19.7 Besat 1 19.0 Besat 2 18

Finals (Reviewers) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 9.2 Croatia 8.0 Georgians 8.2

Finals (Opponents) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 14.0 Croatia 11.7 Georgians 16.1

Finals (Reporters) Teams Name Grade Pahonia 19.2 Croatia 21.4 Georgians 22.4

Hypotheses From the very beginning of the tournament there are teams-favorites and teams-outsiders. These can be identified after the first two scientific fights; At the end of the tournament (semi-finals and final), the spread of grades relative to the average value in one scientific fight will be less than at the beginning, as will the spread of grades relative to the average value of all scientific fights, but this average values themselves will increase.

Testing 1) IYNT 2015 was used to test the hypotheses. Indeed, from the very beginning of the tournament, two outsider teams emerged: Bulgaria and Russia‑MG 12. At the beginning of the tournament, these teams showed a large relative deviation summarily from the average results (-36% and -38%) respectively according to SF1 and SF2), and none of these teams reached the final. Teams that have reached the final, already at the stages SF1 and SF2 showed results above the average. 2) Deviations in scientific fights decreased. The mean values of the teams' scores of the two final stages of the tournament, without exception, exceeded the average scores of the stages SF1 and SF2 (Deviation between Finals +Semi-finals averages and SF1+SF2 averages - +9%).

Conclusion We proposed a hypothesis that reveals patterns in the exposed grades for IYNT. The hypothesis was tested on the grades from the past IYNT and fully confirmed. In conclusion, we note that using this hypothesis and the results of the first stages of the IYNT, it is possible to predict further grades.

Used sources http://lesnevsky.ilyam.org/IYNT2015.html http://lesnevsky.ilyam.org/IYNT2016.html

Thanks for watching!