I need a project to Write a 4-5 page (single-spaced with performance graphs, analysis, etc.)
a paper describing your experiments and your results. also, I need help to do presentation slides and write code for this project
You are
most welcome to borrow the code that implements the sorting algorithms from some
reputable sources and make sure to acknowledge the sources properly.
is very important " I need the expert to explain the project when he or she finishes form it. this point is very important to understand the project
also I need the expert to make questions and answers about the project (the professor needs me will want to explore some interesting
questions as well such as what about the performance on a very small problem size (such as
n<50), does="" the="" result="" align="" with="" the="" pattern="" that="" found="" for="" larger="" data="" sets?="" what="" about="">
data set containing many duplicates? Try to come up with your own interesting questions and
run experiments to find the answers. the professor said )
10/9/22, 8:10 PM Project 2: Analysis of Sorting Algorithms https://wssu.instructure.com/courses/24065/assignments/388315 1/2 Project 2: Analysis of Sorting Algorithms Due Nov 8 by 11:59pm Points 100 Submitting a text entry box, a media recording, or a file upload Start Assignment CST 5320: Design/Analysis of Algorithms Project # 2: Comparing the Performances of Different Sorting Algorithms Points: 100 You need to work with another team mate in this project. Please choose your team and let me know by 10/18. In this project, your mission is to implement and compare different sorting algorithms: Bubble sort, Insertion sort, MergeSort, and Quicksort and run experiments to answer the questions below. You are most welcome to borrow the code that implements the sorting algorithms from some reputable sources and make sure to acknowledge the sources properly. Write a 4-5 page (single spaced with performance graphs, analysis etc.) paper describing your experiments and your results. 1. Problem 1 asks you to look at the growth rate of comparisons vs problem size. Basically, you will be exploring the question “How does the number of array-element comparisons grow as a function of n?” The program should report how many comparisons c of array elements a particular sorting algorithm performs each time it executes. Insert a counter variable in your program, and print out both n and c. Then look at the functional relationship c = f(n). You should generate input data sets that contain 100, 1000, 2000, 10000, 20000, 50000, and 100000 elements (random numbers) in it and see how the value of c changes with respect to n for each of the five algorithms. Discuss your results on the context of individual algorithm and then compare the results of the above-mentioned algorithms. 2. Problem 2 asks you to explore the impact of various data sets on the performance. How much difference is there between best case, average case, and worst case performance? Generate inputs of each category (i.e random, already sorted, reversely sorted, almost sorted etc.), and measure the comparison cost of the algorithm as a function of n. How do these different costs compare on the context of the same algorithm? How do these compare on the context of different algorithms running on different problem size? You should use table, graphs etc. to visually represent your results and discuss on them. You should produce a set of conclusions such as “Algorithm A works best for the already sorted data sets when the input size is within ...... range”. You will want to explore some interesting questions as well such as what about the performance on a very small problem size (such as n<50), does="" the="" result="" align="" with="" the="" pattern="" that="" found="" for="" larger="" data="" sets?="" what="" about="" the="" data="" set="" containing="" many="" duplicates?="" try="" to="" come="" up="" with="" your="" own="" interesting="" questions="" and="" run="" experiments="" to="" find="" the="" answers.="" on="" 11/10="" class,="" each="" team="" will="" be="" making="" a="" 12="" minutes="" presentation="" (10min="" talk="" +="" 2="" min="" question)="" based="" on="" your="" findings.="" submit="" your="" report="" (describing="" your="" experiments,="" results,="" and="" discussions),="" presentation="" slide="" and="" code="" in="" canvas="" by="" the="" due="" date.="" masha="" cross-out="" masha="" cross-out="" due="" oct="" 30="" by="" 11:59="" pm="" masha="" sticky="" note="" masha="" cross-out="" masha="" highlight="" masha="" highlight="" masha="" highlight="" 10/9/22,="" 8:10="" pm="" project="" 2:="" analysis="" of="" sorting="" algorithms="" https://wssu.instructure.com/courses/24065/assignments/388315="" 2/2="" total="" points:="" 100="" prog&presentation="" rubric="" criteria="" ratings="" pts="" 50="" pts="" 30="" pts="" 20="" pts="" program="" 50="" pts="" excellent="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" each="" input="" data="" sets="" 40="" pts="" good="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" problem="" 1="" dataset="" and="" more="" than="" 70%="" of="" problem="" 2="" data="" sets.="" 35="" pts="" average="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" problem="" 1="" dataset="" and="" 30%="" or="" more="" of="" problem="" 2="" data="" sets.="" 0="" pts="" poor="" the="" program="" has="" bugs="" and="" does="" not="" execute="" report="" 30="" pts="" excellent="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined,="" results="" are="" justified="" and="" analyzed="" properly.="" 25="" pts="" good="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined.="" however,="" discussion="" and="" analysis="" are="" not="" adequate.="" 20="" pts="" average="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined.="" however,="" results="" are="" analyzed="" minimally="" and="" conclusions="" are="" not="" drawn="" based="" on="" the="" results.="" 0="" pts="" poor="" no="" report="" presentation="" 20="" pts="" excellent="" lively,="" organized="" talk,="" not="" reading="" from="" slides,="" make="" eye="" contact,="" able="" to="" complete="" all="" components="" within="" time.="" handle="" questions="" well.="" 15="" pts="" good="" organized="" talk,="" some="" reading="" from="" slides,="" some="" eye="" contact,="" able="" to="" complete="" all="" components="" within="" time.="" handle="" questions="" well.="" 10="" pts="" average="" mostly="" reading="" from="" slides,="" make="" no="" eye="" contact,="" unorganized="" talk="" 0="" pts="" poor="" no="" presentation="" are="" om="" ae="" er="" aril="" |="" ne="" ere="" alll="" a="" ht="" khlf="" sets="" when="" the="" input="" size="" is="" within="" ......="" range”="" |="" you="" will="" want="" to="" explore="" some="" interesting="" questions="" as="" well="" ss="" hs="" a="" se="" a}="" hi="" ee="" li.="" such="" as="" what="" about="" the="" performance="" on="" a="" very="" small="" problem="" size="" (such="" as=""><50), does the result align with the pattern that found for larger data sets? what about the data set containing many duplicates? try to come up with your own interesting questions and run experiments to find the answers | on 11/10 prog&presentation rubric criteria program report presentation 50 pts excellent 40 pts good the program runs correctly and produces correct results for each input data sets 2data 30 pts excellent the report is organized well, the experiments and results are clearly outlined, results are justified and analyzed properly. 20 pts excellent lively, organized talk, not reading from slides, make eye contact, able to compl all components within time. handle questions well, ratings the program runs correctly and produces correct results for problem 1 dataset and more than 70% of problem sets. 25 pts good the report is organized well, the experiments and results are clearly outlined. however, discussion and analysis are not adequate. 15 pts good organized talk, some reading from slides, some eye contact, able to complete all ete components within time. handle questions well. 35 pts average the program runs correctly and produces correct results for problem 1 dataset and 30% or more of problem 2 data sets. 20 pts average the report is organized well, the experiments and results are clearly outlined. however, results are analyzed minimally and opts poor the program has bugs and does 50 pts not execute opts poor no report | 30 pts conclusions are not drawn based on the results. 10 pts average mostly reading from slides, make no eye contact, unorganized talk opts poor no presentation 20 pts total points: 100 submit your report (describing your experiments, results, and discussions), ) lea slide and code in canvas by the due date —~— does="" the="" result="" align="" with="" the="" pattern="" that="" found="" for="" larger="" data="" sets?="" what="" about="" the="" data="" set="" containing="" many="" duplicates?="" try="" to="" come="" up="" with="" your="" own="" interesting="" questions="" and="" run="" experiments="" to="" find="" the="" answers="" |="" on="" 11/10="" prog&presentation="" rubric="" criteria="" program="" report="" presentation="" 50="" pts="" excellent="" 40="" pts="" good="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" each="" input="" data="" sets="" 2data="" 30="" pts="" excellent="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined,="" results="" are="" justified="" and="" analyzed="" properly.="" 20="" pts="" excellent="" lively,="" organized="" talk,="" not="" reading="" from="" slides,="" make="" eye="" contact,="" able="" to="" compl="" all="" components="" within="" time.="" handle="" questions="" well,="" ratings="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" problem="" 1="" dataset="" and="" more="" than="" 70%="" of="" problem="" sets.="" 25="" pts="" good="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined.="" however,="" discussion="" and="" analysis="" are="" not="" adequate.="" 15="" pts="" good="" organized="" talk,="" some="" reading="" from="" slides,="" some="" eye="" contact,="" able="" to="" complete="" all="" ete="" components="" within="" time.="" handle="" questions="" well.="" 35="" pts="" average="" the="" program="" runs="" correctly="" and="" produces="" correct="" results="" for="" problem="" 1="" dataset="" and="" 30%="" or="" more="" of="" problem="" 2="" data="" sets.="" 20="" pts="" average="" the="" report="" is="" organized="" well,="" the="" experiments="" and="" results="" are="" clearly="" outlined.="" however,="" results="" are="" analyzed="" minimally="" and="" opts="" poor="" the="" program="" has="" bugs="" and="" does="" 50="" pts="" not="" execute="" opts="" poor="" no="" report="" |="" 30="" pts="" conclusions="" are="" not="" drawn="" based="" on="" the="" results.="" 10="" pts="" average="" mostly="" reading="" from="" slides,="" make="" no="" eye="" contact,="" unorganized="" talk="" opts="" poor="" no="" presentation="" 20="" pts="" total="" points:="" 100="" submit="" your="" report="" (describing="" your="" experiments,="" results,="" and="" discussions),="" )="" lea="" slide="" and="" code="" in="" canvas="" by="" the="" due="" date="">