Stephanos Androutsellis PhD research plan: Difference between revisions
From Istlab
Jump to navigationJump to search
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 3.a. |
! 3.a. |
||
| Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
| Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 3.b. |
! 3.b. |
||
| Limits of research scope |
| Limits of research scope |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 3.c. |
! 3.c. |
||
| Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
| Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 3.c.i. |
! 3.c.i. |
||
| Relation to other approaches |
| Relation to other approaches |
||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 3.c.ii. |
! 3.c.ii. |
||
| Abstract description of proposed solution. |
| Abstract description of proposed solution. |
||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4. |
||
| Methodology |
| Methodology |
||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.a. |
! 4.a. |
||
| How we chose this particular approach |
| How we chose this particular approach |
||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.b. |
! 4.b. |
||
| Description of our overall approach |
| Description of our overall approach |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.c. |
! 4.c. |
||
| Hypotheses |
| Hypotheses |
||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.d. |
! 4.d. |
||
| Prototype system trials |
| Prototype system trials |
||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.d.i. |
! 4.d.i. |
||
| Experimental setup |
| Experimental setup |
||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.d.ii. |
! 4.d.ii. |
||
| Methodology for evaluation |
| Methodology for evaluation |
||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.e. |
! 4.e. |
||
| Composite experimental trials |
| Composite experimental trials |
||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.e.i. |
! 4.e.i. |
||
| Experimental setup |
| Experimental setup |
||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.e.ii. |
! 4.e.ii. |
||
| Transaction data |
| Transaction data |
||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 4.e.iii. |
! 4.e.iii. |
||
| Methodology for evaluation |
| Methodology for evaluation |
||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 5. |
! 5. |
||
| Design and implementation |
| Design and implementation |
||
| Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 5.a. |
! 5.a. |
||
| Design of Ptrim system |
| Design of Ptrim system |
||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 5.b. |
! 5.b. |
||
| Ptrim implementation details |
| Ptrim implementation details |
||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 5.c. |
! 5.c. |
||
| Composite experiment setup |
| Composite experiment setup |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 5.d. |
! 5.d. |
||
| Data crawling |
| Data crawling |
||
| Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 6. |
! 6. |
||
| Results, evaluation and discussion |
| Results, evaluation and discussion |
||
| Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 6.a. |
! 6.a. |
||
| Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
| Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
||
| Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 6.b. |
! 6.b. |
||
| Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
| Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
||
| Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 6.c. |
! 6.c. |
||
| Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
| Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
||
| Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 7. |
! 7. |
||
| Future work |
| Future work |
||
| Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 7.a. |
! 7.a. |
||
| Security |
| Security |
||
| Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 7.b. |
! 7.b. |
||
| Collusion detection |
| Collusion detection |
||
| Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 7.c. |
! 7.c. |
||
| Insuring insurance transactions |
| Insuring insurance transactions |
||
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 7.d. |
! 7.d. |
||
| Further experiments and simulation studies |
| Further experiments and simulation studies |
||
| Line 264: | Line 264: | ||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
|- |
||
! 8. |
! 8. |
||
| Conclusions and synopsis |
| Conclusions and synopsis |
||
Revision as of 01:27, 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.