Stephanos Androutsellis PhD research plan: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
PhD thesis table of contents: |
PhD thesis table of contents: |
||
1. Introduction |
*1. Introduction |
||
a. Overview of my research and motivation |
**a. Overview of my research and motivation |
||
Use Ptrim S1 |
Use Ptrim S1 |
||
b. Main results and original contributions |
**b. Main results and original contributions |
||
c. Organisation of thesis |
**c. Organisation of thesis |
||
2. Theory and background |
*2. Theory and background |
||
a. Introduction – big picture |
**a. Introduction – big picture |
||
b. P2P networks and architectures |
**b. P2P networks and architectures |
||
Based on ACM survey |
Based on ACM survey |
||
c. Distributed transaction processing systems |
**c. Distributed transaction processing systems |
||
Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper) |
Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper) |
||
d. Centralized and distributed reputation management |
**d. Centralized and distributed reputation management |
||
Survey of current approaches |
Survey of current approaches |
||
e. Market-based risk management |
**e. Market-based risk management |
||
Financial derivatives, risk management, market efficiency. Use Ptrim S2.1. S2.4 |
Financial derivatives, risk management, market efficiency. Use Ptrim S2.1. S2.4 |
||
f. Auxiliary theory and tools used in this research |
**f. Auxiliary theory and tools used in this research |
||
Mention, with references to Sections, we’ll be talking about crawling utilities, importance sampling, Java/jxta development etc. |
Mention, with references to Sections, we’ll be talking about crawling utilities, importance sampling, Java/jxta development etc. |
||
3. Problem definition and proposed solution |
*3. Problem definition and proposed solution |
||
a. Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
**a. Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
||
Includes general and also specific goals |
Includes general and also specific goals |
||
b. Limits of research scope |
**b. Limits of research scope |
||
Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). |
Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). |
||
c. Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
**c. Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
||
At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. |
At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. |
||
i. Relation to other approaches |
***i. Relation to other approaches |
||
Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. |
Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. |
||
ii. Abstract description of proposed solution. |
***ii. Abstract description of proposed solution. |
||
Abstract design and architecture. Description of the market-based insurance layer, and the Ptrim system. Use Ptrim S2.3. Talk about need for efficient, competitive market. Use Ptrim S3.1. |
Abstract design and architecture. Description of the market-based insurance layer, and the Ptrim system. Use Ptrim S2.3. Talk about need for efficient, competitive market. Use Ptrim S3.1. |
||
4. Methodology |
*4. Methodology |
||
a. How we chose this particular approach |
**a. How we chose this particular approach |
||
With particular focus to our evaluation approach. Discuss other possible approaches (e.g. theoretical) that were not selected. |
With particular focus to our evaluation approach. Discuss other possible approaches (e.g. theoretical) that were not selected. |
||
b. Description of our overall approach |
**b. Description of our overall approach |
||
We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results. |
We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results. |
||
c. Hypotheses |
**c. Hypotheses |
||
What were our specific hypotheses (H1, H2, H3). We’ll refer to them in d and e below, and also again in Section 6. |
What were our specific hypotheses (H1, H2, H3). We’ll refer to them in d and e below, and also again in Section 6. |
||
d. Prototype system trials |
**d. Prototype system trials |
||
What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
||
i. Experimental setup |
***i. Experimental setup |
||
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. |
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. |
||
ii. Methodology for evaluation |
***ii. Methodology for evaluation |
||
How will we evaluate the results. |
How will we evaluate the results. |
||
e. Composite experimental trials |
**e. Composite experimental trials |
||
Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
||
i. Experimental setup |
***i. Experimental setup |
||
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S |
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S |
||
ii. Transaction data |
***ii. Transaction data |
||
Where we found the data and what we did with it |
Where we found the data and what we did with it |
||
iii. Methodology for evaluation |
***iii. Methodology for evaluation |
||
How will we evaluate the results (market efficiency, risk reduction, questionnaires etc) |
How will we evaluate the results (market efficiency, risk reduction, questionnaires etc) |
||
5. Design and implementation |
*5. Design and implementation |
||
Follows the structure of 3c, but not at an abstract level any more, we refer to design and implementation. Lots of UML diagrams |
Follows the structure of 3c, but not at an abstract level any more, we refer to design and implementation. Lots of UML diagrams |
||
a. Design of Ptrim system |
**a. Design of Ptrim system |
||
b. Ptrim implementation details |
**b. Ptrim implementation details |
||
How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2. |
How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2. |
||
c. Composite experiment setup |
**c. Composite experiment setup |
||
How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. |
How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. |
||
d. Data crawling |
**d. Data crawling |
||
How we did this |
How we did this |
||
6. Results, evaluation and discussion |
*6. Results, evaluation and discussion |
||
a. Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
**a. Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
||
Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses |
Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses |
||
b. Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
**b. Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
||
Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses |
Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses |
||
c. Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
**c. Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
||
7. Future work |
*7. Future work |
||
Mention these also in Section 3.b. |
Mention these also in Section 3.b. |
||
a. Security |
**a. Security |
||
b. Collusion detection |
**b. Collusion detection |
||
c. Insuring insurance transactions |
**c. Insuring insurance transactions |
||
d. Further experiments and simulation studies |
**d. Further experiments and simulation studies |
||
8. Conclusions and synopsis |
*8. Conclusions and synopsis |
||
Revision as of 00:34, 4 June 2008
Publications Plan:
* Currently I only focus on thesis write-up. There are no specific goals for other publications.
Non-thesis-related personal plans:
* Follow SENSE/PENED accounting stuff. * Follow SOPRANO accounting stuff. * Prepare for SOPRANO Bilbao meeting (June 10-12).
PhD thesis table of contents:
- 1. Introduction
- a. Overview of my research and motivation
Use Ptrim S1
- b. Main results and original contributions
- c. Organisation of thesis
- 2. Theory and background
- a. Introduction – big picture
- b. P2P networks and architectures
Based on ACM survey
- c. Distributed transaction processing systems
Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper)
- d. Centralized and distributed reputation management
Survey of current approaches
- e. Market-based risk management
Financial derivatives, risk management, market efficiency. Use Ptrim S2.1. S2.4
- f. Auxiliary theory and tools used in this research
Mention, with references to Sections, we’ll be talking about crawling utilities, importance sampling, Java/jxta development etc.
- 3. Problem definition and proposed solution
- a. Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk
Includes general and also specific goals
- b. Limits of research scope
Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7).
- c. Proposed solution: A Market based approach
At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas.
- i. Relation to other approaches
Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate.
- ii. Abstract description of proposed solution.
Abstract design and architecture. Description of the market-based insurance layer, and the Ptrim system. Use Ptrim S2.3. Talk about need for efficient, competitive market. Use Ptrim S3.1.
- 4. Methodology
- a. How we chose this particular approach
With particular focus to our evaluation approach. Discuss other possible approaches (e.g. theoretical) that were not selected.
- b. Description of our overall approach
We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results.
- c. Hypotheses
What were our specific hypotheses (H1, H2, H3). We’ll refer to them in d and e below, and also again in Section 6.
- d. Prototype system trials
What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here.
- i. Experimental setup
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc.
- ii. Methodology for evaluation
How will we evaluate the results.
- e. Composite experimental trials
Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here.
- i. Experimental setup
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S
- ii. Transaction data
Where we found the data and what we did with it
- iii. Methodology for evaluation
How will we evaluate the results (market efficiency, risk reduction, questionnaires etc)
- 5. Design and implementation
Follows the structure of 3c, but not at an abstract level any more, we refer to design and implementation. Lots of UML diagrams
- a. Design of Ptrim system
- b. Ptrim implementation details
How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2.
- c. Composite experiment setup
How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc.
- d. Data crawling
How we did this
- 6. Results, evaluation and discussion
- a. Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes
Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses
- b. Evaluation of composite trial outcomes
Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses
- c. Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach
- 7. Future work
Mention these also in Section 3.b.
- a. Security
- b. Collusion detection
- c. Insuring insurance transactions
- d. Further experiments and simulation studies
- 8. Conclusions and synopsis
PhD thesis research plan:
- May 29th 2008: Draft version of PhD skeleton, official initiation of writeup
- June 10th 2008: Completion of additional composite experiment with uniformly sampled data on undergrads. This will be used for the thesis, or for future Ptrim paper versions.
- September 2008: Expected revision of Ptrim journal paper.
- July 10th 2008: First draft of thesis for overview with dds.
- August 25th 2008: Second draft of thesis for overview with dds.
- September 20th 2008: Thesis version ready for review with dds.
- October 15th 2008: Final thesis version ready for submission.
- November 2008: Thesis presentation and PhD completion.