Committee of Visitors Report Division of Mathematical Sciences National Science Foundation Presentation to the MPS Advisory Committee Margaret H. Wright, COV Chair Computer Science Department Courant Institute New York University

Format: an overview of the report The main sound bite: DMS is doing a great job.

A review of the COV process 1.Careful selection of a knowledgeable, balanced, and diverse committee (34 members) 2.Advance preparation of data about DMS (keeping in mind the prescribed COV template) 3.Warning the COV members about all- working lunches, a working dinner, and one late night

Statutory COV tasks: 1.Review of DMS processes 2.Report on investments, balance, priorities, and future directions 3.Comment on DMS’s response to previous (2004) COV Plus six “additional questions” posed to COV by MPS and DMS

Three COV subcommittees ~700 proposals examined by COV (7727 actions within DMS during the period under review) Overall COV conclusion: DMS’s process is fair, effective, and well managed.

A few highlights of the process review: 1.The COV likes the “PI-proxy” strategy for improving feedback to PIs 2.Continuing concern about “broader impacts” criterion 3.Burden on program officers of identifying “innovative high risk” proposals 4.The COV likes panel review, supplemented by mail review as appropriate

A major overall concern: Too much unfunded excellence! Suggestion: if the DMS budget increases, it would be desirable to increase the number of awards. Note: The number-size tradeoff, the subject of Additional Question 3, is a “hot button” issue in the mathematical sciences community.

Pipeline issues: a perennial concern 1.(Relatively) low success rates for new investigators 2.(Relatively) low success rates for women and underrepresented minorities 3.Decreasing absolute support for PhD students The COV knows that DMS cares and is taking action, but it’s our duty to mention these important issues.

The DMS Institute Portfolio: 1.The COV likes the institutes and the DMS strategy of treating their activities as a portfolio. 2. Because of changes during the past four years, the institute portfolio should be analyzed with respect to several questions, and the analysis made available to the community.

Communication with the community Measuring the impact of NSF support, especially REU-funded undergraduates and PhD students

Additional question 5: Is DMS involved with an appropriate number of collaborative opportunities (inside and outside NSF)? Answer: YES

Additional question 6: Portfolio balance, and the effect of the Mathematical Sciences Priority Area (MSPA)? Answer: Overall, the MSPA has had a very positive effect on the DMS portfolio.

The most enjoyable part of the COV was having the opportunity to select outstanding results of NSF investments. See Part B of the COV template for many examples.

A selection: “People”: VIGRE program at the University of Chicago (involvement with high school students; undergraduates participate in teaching)

“Ideas”: Okounkov (Princeton), winner of 2006 Fields Medal, work bridging probability, representation theory, and algebraic geometry. Strogatz (Cornell) and Ott (Maryland), an explanation of why the Millennium Bridge in London wobbled when opened to pedestrians.

“Tools” (mainly software): SLEDGE++ (Brown), widely used finite-element discretization package SAGE, open-source software supporting teaching in algebra, geometry, number theory, and cryptography

To repeat the highest-level point: DMS is doing an excellent job. Questions?