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

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

3. 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.

4. Our condition of the problem
Explore the estimates of IYNT 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.

5. 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 ( );

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

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

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

17. 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.

18. 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%).

19. 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.

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

21. Thanks for watching!