1 / 35

Clarity of Thought in Research, Reading, and Writing

Clarity of Thought in Research, Reading, and Writing. Dr. Fred JIANG / 姜小凡 Researcher, Mobile and Sensing Systems Group (MASS) Microsoft Research Asia http://research.microsoft.com/people/fxjiang. The Simpson’s take on Ph.D. “They just made a terrible life choice.” – Marge Simpson .

abel
Télécharger la présentation

Clarity of Thought in Research, Reading, and Writing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clarity of Thought in Research, Reading, and Writing Dr. Fred JIANG / 姜小凡 Researcher, Mobile and Sensing Systems Group (MASS) Microsoft Research Asia http://research.microsoft.com/people/fxjiang

  2. The Simpson’s take on Ph.D. • “They just made a terrible life choice.” – Marge Simpson

  3. The illustrated guide to a Ph.D.by Matt Might http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

  4. Some thoughts on research • Why get a Ph.D.? • Make money? • To be called Dr. Blah Blah? • Allow you to teach at the university level • Allow you to do research and expand human knowledge • Dissemination of knowledge • What I consider to be one of the most important takeaways from graduate study • Clarity of thought: in the research process, in understanding previous work, in dissemination, and in everyday thinking. • No, a career in research is not for everyone • Sometimes you can contribute more by doing something else.

  5. Credits • Many slides are based on David Patterson’s “How to Have a Bad Career In Research/Academia” • Many advises are directly taken from my advisors David Culler and Scott Shenker • Many thanks to my colleagues over the years

  6. Outline • On research • The scientific method • Selecting a problem • Formulating a hypothesis • Design experiments • Evaluation • Finishing a project • The feedback loop • On reading • Reader’s perspective • Reviewer’s perspective • On writing • The writing process • Simplicity

  7. The Scientific Method Scientific Method • Hypothesis • Sequence of experiments • Change 1 parameter/exp. • Prove/Disprove Hypothesis • Document for others toreproduce results Computer Scientific Method • Hunch • 1 experiment& change all parameters • Discard if doesn’t support hunch • Why waste time? We know this

  8. Selecting a problem • Research starts with SEARCH (and RE-search) • Solve real problem that someone cares about • Select problems with definable success metrics • Break larger problems into smaller checkpoints • Cross-disciplinary projects (ACme signature analysis example) • Pay attention along the way (they often lead to interesting problems and solutions)

  9. Formulating a Hypothesis / Picking a Solution • Simple solutions are better than complex ones! • Best results are obvious in retrospect“Anyone could have thought of that” • Reproducible

  10. (And Pick A Good Name!) Reduced Instruction Set Computers Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks Recovery Oriented Computing …

  11. Design Experiments • Must be able to EVALUATE results! • Positive results vs. negative results • Break it down– experiments that verify one dimension at a time • Iteratively evaluate and improve solution (the debugging process) • Use experiments to verify (fully) before moving on • The Berkeley way vs. the MIT way

  12. Evaluation • Define metric of success (what to evaluate) • Quantitatively (figures, graphs) • Report in sufficient detail for others to reproduce results • can’t convince others if they can’t get same results • Be honest with results (anticipate criticism from reviewers and address them; use additional experiments – explain why something didn’t work)

  13. Finishing a project • People count projects you finish, not the ones you start • Successful projects go through an unglamorous, hard phase • Finishing a project is how people acquire taste in selecting good problems and finding simple solutions

  14. The Feedback Loop • Feedback at every step • Idea conception (usually get killed right away) • Project team formulation • Interact with peers, industry, “luminaries” • Ability (and willingness) to consider mid-course correction • CS is a fast changing field; assumptions changed; new technologies appear; others have done

  15. Reading an Academic Paper • Different types of readers • The knowledge seeker: most people read academic paper to get a rough idea • The other guy: some one who is in a similar field or working on something related. • Members of the TPC: “should I accept or reject it?”

  16. The Knowledge Seeker • Don’t care about deep technical details • They will most likely skip the equations • Don’t have time to read every word • And only look at figures and read captions • May not have the relevant technical background • But will usually read intro

  17. The Other Guy • Comparison to your paper • “how is my work different?” • “why is my work better?” • Reproduce / build on top of your work • An implementation of the concept / architecture of your paper • Reproduce results for comparison

  18. Members of the TPC • Technical contribution • Originality • Relevance to the conference/journal/workshop • Scoring • Recommendation • Originality and impact • Technical correctness • Presentation • Expertise • The champion / anti-champion

  19. My Writing Process • PPT with figures (figures are good) • May not be real figures, simply use figure templates • Figure captions (lots of caption) • Get feedback on PPT • Write topic sentences • Write • Read aloud • Get feedback (iterative process) • Rewrite (“don’t be afraid to kill your own babies”)

  20. Brevity • “If it were not unsimple then how could distinguished colleagues in departments around the world be positively appreciative of both your extraordinary intellectual grasp of the nuances of issues as well as the depth of your contribution?”

  21. Sincerity • Distinguish “will do” vs “have done”, mention drawbacks, real performance, reference other papers • Be upfront with key findings / results • Draw readers in early • “Earn their trust before preaching to them”

  22. Simplicity • Best compliment: “Its so complicated, I can’t understand the ideas” • Easier to claim credit for subsequent good ideas • If no one understands, how can they contradict your claim? • It’s easier to be complicated

  23. The Systems Paper Template • Abstract • Introduction • Related Work / Background • Architecture / Design Choices • Implementation • Evaluation / Deployment • Future Work • Conclusion

  24. Specific Advices and References • Quantity vs quality • Journal paper vs conference paper (and workshop paper) • Have impact • Patterson’s writing advices: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~pattrsn/talks/writingtips.html • “The elements of style” by S&W

More Related