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...

Please follow the rubric


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:  A brief 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  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 reflects the data sensitivity of both algorithms o how your results compare to your Big-Θ analysis  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 brief description of the. sorting algorithms together with Highevel pseudocode for the. algorithms (30) Contains correct Big © analysis ofthe igorithms (30) Contains an explanation of your 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 reflects the data sensitivity of your algorithm (15) Contains 3 discussion of how your rests 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 brict 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 reflects the data sensitivity of your algorithm (0) Docs not contain a discussion of how your results compare to your Big-0 analysis 0) points I Docs not contain a conclusion that summarizes the important observations of your study (0) 13200