Stephanos Androutsellis PhD research plan: Difference between revisions

From Istlab
Jump to navigationJump to search
Content deleted Content added
Stheotok (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Stheotok (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Publications Plan:
Publications Plan:
* Currently I only focus on thesis write-up. There are no specific goals for other publications.
* Currently I only focus on thesis write-up. There are no specific goals for other publications.


Non-thesis-related personal plans:
Non-thesis-related personal plans:
* Follow SENSE/PENED accounting stuff.
* Follow SENSE/PENED accounting stuff.
* Follow SOPRANO accounting stuff.
* Follow SOPRANO accounting stuff.
* Prepare for SOPRANO Bilbao meeting (June 10-12).
* Prepare for SOPRANO Bilbao meeting (June 10-12).


PhD thesis table of contents:
PhD thesis table of contents:

Revision as of 00:36, 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.