Commit 2cd5906d authored by Robert Ricci's avatar Robert Ricci

Handout, etc. for paper assignment #4

parent f4b0492c
DOCUMENTS=handout
include ../../Makerules
## Rule to build a .pdf from a .tex of the same name; the automatic variable $<
## refers to the name of the first dependency
%.pdf: %.tex
pdflatex $<
## Find all .tex files, and assume each will be built into a separate PDF; by
## Adding dependency on foo.pdf, we cause the rule above to be triggered to turn
## foo.tex into foo.pdf
## The 'all' target is built by default if you just run 'make'
all: $(patsubst %.tex, %.pdf, $(wildcard *.tex))
\documentclass{article}
\title{Paper Evaluation: \\ FIRST AUTHOR LASTNAME, VENUE, YEAR}
\author{YOUR NAME HERE}
\date{\today}
%% Simple macro to make it easy to identify the questions in the evaluation
%% form. To make the questions vanish, comment out the first line and uncomment
%% the second.
\newcommand{\question}[1]{\textit{#1}}
%\newcommand{\question}[1]{}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Paper Summary}
\question{In your own words, summarize the paper in single paragraph. Make sure
to address, as succinctly as possible: what problem is the paper solving,
what are the major techniques it employs, and what are its conclusions?}
\section{Paper Goals}
\question{Does the paper have a set of clear goals stated in the abstract or
introduction? If so, what are they? State in your own words in two
sentences or less. If not, help the authors out: state what you think the
goals are. Be as brief as possible.}
\section{Questions to Answer}
\question{List the questions you think the paper needs to answer in order
to persuasively argue that it has accomplished its goals. Which of
these questions can be answered by evaluation? For those that can, what
type of evaluation would you find most convincing? What factors would
you expect to see investigated, and over what ranges (order of magnitude)?
What metrics would you expect to see used? For questions that cannot
be answered with a typical evaluation, what kinds of arguments would you
find persuasive?}
\section{System Under Test}
\question{What did the authors chose as the boundaries for the System Under
Test? Did they define them clearly? If not, try defining them yourself,
either based on clues in the paper or based on what you think the
boundaries should be.}
\section{Parameters and Factors}
\question{What (system and/or workload) parameters do the authors list? Did
they include any that were not necessary, or leave out any you think
to be important? Which of the parameters did they vary as factors,
and do you think there are any unnecessary or left-out factors?}
\section{Major Evaluations}
\question{List the major evaluations that the paper includes. For each,
briefly list:
\begin{itemize}
\item Evaluation method used (eg. simulation, analytical modeling,
live measurement, emulation)
\item Metrics used
\item Factor(s) varied
\item Workload used
\item Conclusion / outcome of the evaluation
\end{itemize}
}
\section{Questions Revisited}
\question{Looking back at the list of questions, which were answered to your
satisfaction, and which were not?}
\section{Goals Revisited}
\question{Overall, are you satisfied that the paper provides sufficient
evidence that it meets its claimed goals? If not, what else would be
required?}
\section{Common Mistakes}
\question{Does the paper make any of the common mistakes listed in Chapter~2
of the book? How could the authors have avoided any of the mistakes that
they made?}
\end{document}
\documentclass{article}[10pt]
\usepackage[no-math]{fontspec}
\usepackage{sectsty}
\usepackage{paralist}
\usepackage{ragged2e}
\usepackage{MnSymbol}
\usepackage{fontawesome}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[margin=1.25in]{geometry}
\newcommand*{\git}{\texttt{git}}
\setmainfont[Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures=TeX]{Equity Text A}
\setmonofont{Inconsolata}
\newfontfamily\titlefont[Numbers=OldStyle,Ligatures=TeX]{Equity Caps A}
\allsectionsfont{\titlefont}
\newcommand{\mytitle}{
\begin{center}%
\LARGE\titlefont%
\title
\end{center}
\vspace{5pt}
\begin{center}%
\large
{\titlefont Assigned:} \assigned \hspace{2em} {\titlefont Due:} \due~2:00 PM\\[3pt]
{\titlefont Submission:} \turnin
\end{center}
\vspace{3pt}
}
\renewcommand{\title}{CS 6963 Paper Analysis \#3}
\newcommand{\assigned}{March 18}
\newcommand{\due}{January 27}
\newcommand{\turnin}{branch: \texttt{papers3-submit} \newline files: \texttt{evals/\{mussbam,kunz\}.pdf}}
\begin{document}
\mytitle
Answer the set of questions in \texttt{evals/paper-eval.pdf} for each of the
following two papers:
\begin{itemize}
\item ``A Comparative Study of Network Link Emulators'' by Nussbaum
and Richard
\item ``KnowMan: Knowledge Driven Network Management in Open Access
Networks'' by Kunz et~al.
\end{itemize}
For your convenience, the papers can be found in the repository in the
\texttt{papers/} directory.
Turn in two separate PDFs in the \texttt{evals/} directory, with each filename
matching the paper you are analyzing.
For the questions about your expectations for the paper (eg. \#2 and \#3), it's
best if you answer them as you read through the paper; eg. write about your
expectations for the evaluation before you read it.
You may use the \LaTeX{} template in \texttt{evals/} or not as you
see fit; to use it, simply copy \texttt{paper-eval.tex} to
\texttt{PAPER-NAME.tex} and use \texttt{make} to build.
Look at the comments at the top for a quick way to make the questions
disappear.
Submit this assignment by pushing it to your grading repository, using the
branch name listed above.
\end{document}
HW #1 Score:
XX / 10 : Submitted a PDF
======
Total score: XX / YY
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment