Stephanos Androutsellis PhD research plan: Difference between revisions

From Istlab
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
Stheotok (talk | contribs)
99 edits
No edit summary
Stheotok (talk | contribs)
99 edits
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
|-
|-
! 1.a.
! 1.a.
| Overview of my research and motivation (Use Ptrim S1)
| Overview of my research and motivation
| Use Ptrim S1
|
|
|
|
|
Line 81: Line 81:




! 3.
*3. Problem definition and proposed solution
| 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).
! 3.a.
**c. Proposed solution: A Market based approach
| Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk
At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas.
| Includes general and also specific goals
***i. Relation to other approaches
|
Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate.
|
***ii. Abstract description of proposed solution.
! 3.b.
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.
| Limits of research scope
*4. Methodology
| Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7).
**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
! 3.c.
We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results.
| Proposed solution: A Market based approach
**c. Hypotheses
| At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas.
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.
! 3.c.i.
***i. Experimental setup
| Relation to other approaches
How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc.
| Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate.
***ii. Methodology for evaluation
|
How will we evaluate the results.
|
**e. Composite experimental trials
! 3.c.ii.
Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here.
| Abstract description of proposed solution.
***i. Experimental setup
| 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.
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
! 4.
***iii. Methodology for evaluation
| Methodology
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
! 4.a.
**b. Ptrim implementation details
| How we chose this particular approach
How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2.
| With particular focus to our evaluation approach. Discuss other possible approaches (e.g. theoretical) that were not selected.
**c. Composite experiment setup
|
How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc.
|
**d. Data crawling
! 4.b.
How we did this
| Description of our overall approach
*6. Results, evaluation and discussion
| We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results.
**a. Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes
|
Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses
|
**b. Evaluation of composite trial outcomes
! 4.c.
Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses
| Hypotheses
**c. Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach
| What were our specific hypotheses (H1, H2, H3). We’ll refer to them in d and e below, and also again in Section 6.
*7. Future work
|
Mention these also in Section 3.b.
|
**a. Security
! 4.d.
**b. Collusion detection
| Prototype system trials
**c. Insuring insurance transactions
| What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here.
**d. Further experiments and simulation studies
|
*8. Conclusions and synopsis
|

! 4.d.i.

| Experimental setup
| How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc.
|
|
! 4.d.ii.
| Methodology for evaluation
| How will we evaluate the results.
|
|
! 4.e.
| Composite experimental trials
| Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here.
|
|
! 4.e.i.
| Experimental setup
| How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S
|
|
! 4.e.ii.
| Transaction data
| Where we found the data and what we did with it
|
|
! 4.e.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
|
|
! 5.a.
| Design of Ptrim system
| ...
|
|
! 5.b.
| Ptrim implementation details
| How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2.
|
|
! 5.c.
| Composite experiment setup
| How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc.
|
|
! 5.d.
| Data crawling
| How we did this
|
|
! 6.
| Results, evaluation and discussion
| ...
|
|
! 6.a.
| Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes
| Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses
|
|
! 6.b.
| Evaluation of composite trial outcomes
| Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses
|
|
! 6.c.
| Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach
| ...
|
|
! 7.
| Future work
| Mention these also in Section 3.b.
|
|
! 7.a.
| Security
| ...
|
|
! 7.b.
| Collusion detection
| ...
|
|
! 7.c.
| Insuring insurance transactions
| ...
|
|
! 7.d.
| Further experiments and simulation studies
| ...
|
|
! 8.
| Conclusions and synopsis
| ...
|
|
|
|
|}




Revision as of 01:22, 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.
  • Follow DIEPTELO accounting stuff.
  • Prepare for SOPRANO Bilbao meeting (June 10-12).
   PhD thesis table of contents:
No Section Comments Status Target
1. Introduction
1.a. Overview of my research and motivation Use Ptrim S1
1.b. Main results and original contributions
1.c. Organisation of thesis
2. Theory and background
2.a. Introduction – big picture
2.b. P2P networks and architectures Based on ACM survey
2.c. Distributed transaction processing systems Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper)
2.d. Centralized and distributed reputation management Survey of current approaches
2.e. Market-based risk management Financial derivatives, risk management, market efficiency. Use Ptrim S2.1. S2.4
2.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 | | | ! 3.a. | Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk | Includes general and also specific goals | | ! 3.b. | Limits of research scope | Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). | | ! 3.c. | Proposed solution: A Market based approach | At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. | | ! 3.c.i. | Relation to other approaches | Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. | | ! 3.c.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 | ... | | ! 4.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. | | ! 4.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. | | ! 4.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. | | ! 4.d. | Prototype system trials | What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here. | | ! 4.d.i. | Experimental setup | How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. | | ! 4.d.ii. | Methodology for evaluation | How will we evaluate the results. | | ! 4.e. | Composite experimental trials | Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. | | ! 4.e.i. | Experimental setup | How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S | | ! 4.e.ii. | Transaction data | Where we found the data and what we did with it | | ! 4.e.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 | | ! 5.a. | Design of Ptrim system | ... | | ! 5.b. | Ptrim implementation details | How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2. | | ! 5.c. | Composite experiment setup | How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. | | ! 5.d. | Data crawling | How we did this | | ! 6. | Results, evaluation and discussion | ... | | ! 6.a. | Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes | Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses | | ! 6.b. | Evaluation of composite trial outcomes | Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses | | ! 6.c. | Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach | ... | | ! 7. | Future work | Mention these also in Section 3.b. | | ! 7.a. | Security | ... | | ! 7.b. | Collusion detection | ... | | ! 7.c. | Insuring insurance transactions | ... | | ! 7.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.
Retrieved from "https://istlab.dmst.aueb.gr/wiki/index.php?title=Stephanos_Androutsellis_PhD_research_plan&oldid=2697"