EPSRC — Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

INDIVIDUAL GRANT REVIEW — GR/L23260/01
Grant title: A PROBABILISTIC FORMAL METHOD

The Individual Grant Review for GR/L23260/01, which you helpfully submitted on 30/04/2001 following the completion of the research, has now been assessed. A summary of the outcome, which stems from your self-assessment, from the comments of the assessors and the judgement of the panel, is shown below:

Criterion	Final assessment	5-box rating scale
Research quality	Internationally leading	Unsatisfactory to Internationally leading
Research planning and practice	Internationally leading	Unsatisfactory to Internationally leading
Potential scientific impact	Internationally leading	Unsatisfactory to Internationally leading
Output of research staff	Outstanding	Unsatisfactory to Outstanding
Communication of research outputs	Outstanding	Unsatisfactory to Outstanding
Potential benefits to society	Tending to outstanding	Unsatisfactory to Outstanding
Cost effectiveness	Outstanding	Unsatisfactory to Outstanding

Overall assessment: Outstanding

Janet Edwards
Programmes Operations Directorate
janet.edwards@epsrc.ac.uk

Please enter an assessment for each of the criteria listed by ticking the appropriate box. The confidence-level box is provided so that you can indicate your confidence in assessing the review report against the corresponding criterion (H=High, M=Medium, L=Low).

Assessment Criterion	1 Unsatisfactory (5%)	2 Tending to Unsatisfactory (20%)	3 National standing (35%)	4 Tending to Internationally leading (30%)	5 Internationally leading (10%)		Confidence level H/M/L
Research quality					X		H
Research planning and practice				X			H
Potential scientific impact				X			H

Assessment Criterion	1 Unsatisfactory (5%)	2 Tending to Unsatisfactory (10%)	3 Good (40%)	4 Tending to Outstanding (30%)	5 Outstanding (15%)		Confidence level H/M/L
Output of research staff					X		H
Communication of research outputs					X		H
Potential benefits to society			X				H
Cost-effectiveness							L

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please comment on the grantholder's self-assessment, including any aspects on which there is a divergence of views.

This is excellent theoretical work that has found exposition in a remarkable number of papers and talks. It tackles a difficult area — probability & formal methods — with elegance and confidence.

ISSUES YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER	PLEASE GIVE YOUR OPINION ON ANY ASPECT OF THE PROJECT REVIEW
Research quality: underlying quality of the research originality and novelty	Excellent. Likely to be the basis for a great deal of subsequent work.
Research planning and practice: scientific/technological approach suitability and effectiveness of the methodology, techniques, management and expertise extent to which planned and additional objectives achieved project management	Good — as far as I can tell.
Potential scientific impact: significance of key advances potential impact on other research	High.
Output of research staff: level and quality of training and opportunity for career progression, RAs, students, collaborators contribution to the provision of trained staff to meet national needs	Very commendable.
Communication of research outputs: dissemination to other researchers extent and influence of relationships with research users (inc. other academics) and industry contribution to public understanding	Very effective.
Potential benefits to society: contribution to quality of life relevance to beneficiaries potential for exploitation (development of new or improved products, processes and services) outputs and timescales	Far too early to say, except in terms of its effect on the research community.
Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project use of resources, particularly staff, equipment and facilities non-EPSRC contributions follow-on support	Cannot really judge. In general, good value for the money.
Future developments: development beyond the lifetime of the project likely to benefit any of the above.	A great deal of work will flow from this.
Any other aspects: young researcher, facilities, etc.

Please enter an assessment for each of the criteria listed by ticking the appropriate box. The confidence-level box is provided so that you can indicate your confidence in assessing the review report against the corresponding criterion (H=High, M=Medium, L=Low).

Assessment Criterion	1 Unsatisfactory (5%)	2 Tending to Unsatisfactory (20%)	3 National standing (35%)	4 Tending to Internationally leading (30%)	5 Internationally leading (10%)		Confidence level H/M/L
Research quality					X		H
Research planning and practice					X		H
Potential scientific impact					X		H

Assessment Criterion	1 Unsatisfactory (5%)	2 Tending to Unsatisfactory (10%)	3 Good (40%)	4 Tending to Outstanding (30%)	5 Outstanding (15%)		Confidence level H/M/L
Output of research staff					X		H
Communication of research outputs					X		H
Potential benefits to society					X		H
Cost-effectiveness					X		H

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please comment on the grantholder's self-assessment, including any aspects on which there is a divergence of views.

I have given a higher rating for potential benefits than have the investigators, because I believe that this work provides a necessary sound basis for future developments, and that some of the spin-off applications, especially qGCL, will be of great benefit — in the long term.

ISSUES YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER	PLEASE GIVE YOUR OPINION ON ANY ASPECT OF THE PROJECT REVIEW
Research quality: underlying quality of the research originality and novelty	This is excellent and exciting work. It has provided a solid basis for things that have been done in an ad hoc manner, if at all, in the past, and provided novel and interesting results.
Research planning and practice: scientific/technological approach suitability and effectiveness of the methodology, techniques, management and expertise extent to which planned and additional objectives achieved project management	The (revised) objectives have been more than met.
Potential scientific impact: significance of key advances potential impact on other research	The follow-on work derived from this project is impressive. I am particularly please by the identification of the spin-offs in the security and quantum computational areas. These, in addition to being important work in their own right, indicate that the research is of general importance and relevance, and is precisely the kind of thing one hopes for from good fundamental research.
Output of research staff: level and quality of training and opportunity for career progression, RAs, students, collaborators contribution to the provision of trained staff to meet national needs	The RA now has a tenured position. One of the spin-off areas, qGCL, has been investigated by a RS supervised by one of the investigators.
Communication of research outputs: dissemination to other researchers extent and influence of relationships with research users (inc. other academics) and industry contribution to public understanding	Impressive level of publications and presentations achieved. The planned production of a book is to be welcomed.
Potential benefits to society: contribution to quality of life relevance to beneficiaries potential for exploitation (development of new or improved products, processes and services) outputs and timescales	The immediate benefits, from the analysis of probabilistic algorithms, should be excellent. These algorithms are of increasing importance for large search and optimisation problems, and such new analytical techniques are to be welcomed. The longer term benefit, from the spin-offs, could be even more important.
Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness and value for money of the project use of resources, particularly staff, equipment and facilities non-EPSRC contributions follow-on support	Excellent. A potential whole new area of algorithm analysis for a mere £200K! There should be more projects like this.
Future developments: development beyond the lifetime of the project likely to benefit any of the above.	The necessary foundation has been laid — now the application to real size problems should be investigated.
Any other aspects: young researcher, facilities, etc.