2016 Summer School:

Held June 21-23, 2016, the NASIT summer school was hosted by Duke University with support and in partnership with Center for Science of Information, as well as IEEE Information Theory Society, and the Information Initiative at Duke. There were 90 students and postdocs attending from 28 universities, with 25 students from our CSoI partners. 19 of the 45 research posters presented were by our CSoI student and postdoctoral members. Read the outcomes report of the school.

• Event Program (pdf)
• Student Poster List (pdf)
• Event Flyer (pdf)

• https://goo.gl/photos/KyHuM2bZ2EDZCpn5A

• School Report (pdf)

Our students rated the presentation quality on a five point scale from poor (1) to very good (5) overall at a mean of 4.7/5 and had comments such as:

The information theory school (2016) was very useful to get a sense of classical problems in information and coding theory and how they are applied to emerging problems of interest. The broad coverage of the areas in the talks and the posters, together with the chance for exchange of ideas and detailed discussions made this summer school very useful and enlightening. ~ CSoI Graduate Student, Stanford University

Though my background is statistics rather than communication engineering, I learned a lot from the 2016 NASIT, from both lecture talks and from other students. The topics were impressive, such as newly developing tools in information theoretic security, how peeling decoder is implemented in coding theory, how to deal with interference channels, and theories of deep learning. It was great for me to learn from the other students and make friends. ~ CSoI Graduate Student, Purdue University

There were two research poster sessions taking place on both day 1 and day 2. The students found these very beneficial in terms of useful feedback from peers and faculty, gaining the experience of explaining their research to others, and learning about the broader scope of research being undertaken in the field, while increasing their professional connections with their peers. Student ratings using a four-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4) are below:

Research Communication Outcomes:	Mean
I obtained useful feedback to my projects/research from talking to other students and faculty members	3.6/4
I gained the experience of explaining my work to other professional peers via the poster session	3.9/4
I learned about other students’ research efforts through the poster session	3.8/4
I started some level of professional connections with peers through the poster session	3.1/4