html5-img
1 / 15

Presenting Research

Presenting Research. Dr. Anjum Naveed & Dr. Peter Bloodsworth. Discussion: What is research?. Discussion: How can research outcomes be communicated to others?. How to Make a Persuasive Argument (researcher’s perspective). Getting Started. Before you start: Have your literature review handy

casta
Télécharger la présentation

Presenting Research

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. Presenting Research Dr. Anjum Naveed & Dr. Peter Bloodsworth

  2. Discussion: What is research?

  3. Discussion: How can research outcomes be communicated to others?

  4. How to Make a Persuasive Argument (researcher’s perspective)

  5. Getting Started • Before you start: • Have your literature review handy • Be very clear regarding what you are trying to prove • Re-read your problem statement / research hypothesis • List the contributions that you want to claim in your thesis • For each point in your list you will need evidence to convince others that you have achieved it • People won’t just take your word for it • The most common reason for a rejected paper is getting this wrong

  6. Learn From Others • Use your literature review • How have others doing similar work to you evaluated their research? • What metrics did they use and why? • Are there any common data sets that are used widely? • How much proof is normally expected / presented? • Some fields require more proof than others

  7. Compared to What? • Are there any systems that you can compare your work with? • Caution 1 : It might sound clever to pick a legacy system to compare against • Your system will look better – right? • WRONG!! : Researchers will spot this straight away and it will harm your credibility in the future • Caution 2 : Be sure that you make fair comparisons • Don’t deliberately pick an inappropriate system to compare against • Don’t choose a data set that favours your system • Don’t make sweeping statements with limited proof!

  8. Explicitly State Assumptions and Initial Conditions • Carefully write down the assumptions that you have made • Are they reasonable? • Could others question them? • How would you answer tough questions? • Results need to be bullet-proof • What initial conditions were set? • Could they bias the results? • What have you done to avoid this? • Could other researchers repeat your tests to verify the results?

  9. Types of Evaluation • Two main types of evaluation: • Quantitative Evaluation • Qualitative Evaluation • The choice / mix of evaluation techniques depends on your thesis topic • Generally quantitative results allow us to make stronger claims • We have to be more careful when taking a qualitative approach can’t claim too much • Ask for advice from your supervisor before starting on this • Try to write an early paper to get some feedback on your evaluation technique

  10. Quantitative Evaluation • Numerical comparisons • System X performs 10% more accurately than System Y • The algorithm is 90% effective in classifying brain tumors • Makes use of statistical and other mathematical techniques • Includes formal mathematical proof • Logical proof and Model checking • Regression to identify trends • Is very powerful but care needs to be taken because errors can be very costly • Examiners tend to be very numerate and will spot mistakes

  11. Simulating Results • In some research areas you won’t have access to the required resources needed for testing • In such cases simulating or modeling can help us to generate quantitative results • Caution : The results will only be as good as our simulation / model!! • Use established simulation / modeling techniques and packages wherever possible • Carefully show that your simulation / model is accurate and that its configuration doesn’t introduce bias • Run several experiments and gradually increase complexity

  12. What Can Go Wrong? • Claiming too much, justifying too little • Using an inappropriate mathematical technique which introduces bias to results • Making a basic mathematical error • Selecting data that isn’t representative of your problem domain • Choosing data which is biased in some way • Not doing enough testing • Not having a large enough data sample • Misinterpreting results – missing the point or drawing wrong conclusions

  13. What Can Go Wrong? • Not using metrics that are expected in your domain • Misunderstanding metrics and applying incorrectly • Choosing the wrong simulation tool and trying to force it to fit your problem • Badly configuring your simulation / model so that it doesn’t really describe your problem • Doing things in a hurry at the last minute increases all of the above risks – take your time!!

  14. Qualitative Evaluation • This is not numerical • Is more descriptive • May involve a criteria for success • Create a list of necessary features that your system needs to show to be deemed a success • Use a range of tests to show how the system behaves in response to stimuli • Try to anticipate the possible inputs to the system • Create a real use-case and make it the focus of your evaluation

  15. What Can Go Wrong • You claim too much – remember that qualitative results give you less real evidence • You make sweeping statements that you don’t properly justify (avoid words like: generic, optimal , etc) • You cover only a small range of possible inputs • You create a basic prototype and try to claim that it shows much more than it does • You don’t do enough testing • You set biased tests in some way without noticing • Your criteria is too limited to really test your work

More Related