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 19: | Line 19: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 1. |
! 1.1. |
||
| Overview of my research and motivation |
| Overview of my research and motivation |
||
| Use Ptrim S1 |
| Use Ptrim S1 |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 1. |
! 1.2. |
||
| Main results and original contributions |
| Main results and original contributions |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 1. |
! 1.3. |
||
| Organisation of thesis |
| Organisation of thesis |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.1. |
||
| Introduction – big picture |
| Introduction – big picture |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.2. |
||
| P2P networks and architectures |
| P2P networks and architectures |
||
| Based on ACM survey |
| Based on ACM survey |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| 1D |
| 1D |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.3. |
||
| |
| Transaction processing systems |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| Online Transaction processing systems |
|||
| Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper) |
| Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper) |
||
| Almost ready, need some formatting |
|||
| |
|||
| |
| 1D |
||
| ⚫ | |||
! 2.3.2 |
|||
| Definitions and requirements analysis |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| Almost ready, need some formatting |
|||
| 1D |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.4. |
||
| Centralized and distributed reputation management |
| Centralized and distributed reputation management |
||
| Survey of current approaches |
| Survey of current approaches |
||
| Line 67: | Line 79: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.5. |
||
| Market-based risk management |
| 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 |
||
| Line 73: | Line 85: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 2. |
! 2.6. |
||
| Auxiliary theory and tools used in this research |
| 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. |
||
| Line 85: | Line 97: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 3. |
! 3.1. |
||
| Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
| Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk |
||
| Includes general and also specific goals |
| Includes general and also specific goals |
||
| Line 91: | Line 103: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 3. |
! 3.2. |
||
| Limits of research scope |
| Limits of research scope |
||
| Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). |
| Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). |
||
| Line 97: | Line 109: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 3. |
! 3.3. |
||
| Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
| Proposed solution: A Market based approach |
||
| At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. |
| At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. |
||
| Line 103: | Line 115: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 3. |
! 3.3.1. |
||
| Relation to other approaches |
| Relation to other approaches |
||
| Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. |
| Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. |
||
| Line 109: | Line 121: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 3. |
! 3.3.2. |
||
| Abstract description of proposed solution. |
| 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. |
||
| Line 121: | Line 133: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.1. |
||
| How we chose this particular approach |
|||
| With particular focus to our evaluation approach. Discuss other possible approaches (e.g. theoretical) that were not selected. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| Description of our overall approach |
| 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. |
||
| Line 133: | Line 139: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.2. |
||
| Hypotheses |
| 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. |
||
| Line 139: | Line 145: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.3. |
||
| Prototype system trials |
| 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. |
||
| Line 145: | Line 151: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.3.1. |
||
| Experimental setup |
| Experimental setup |
||
| How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. |
| How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. |
||
| Line 151: | Line 157: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.3.2. |
||
| Methodology for evaluation |
| Methodology for evaluation |
||
| How will we evaluate the results. |
| How will we evaluate the results. |
||
| Line 157: | Line 163: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.4. |
||
| Composite experimental trials |
| Composite experimental trials |
||
| Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
| Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. |
||
| Line 163: | Line 169: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.4.1. |
||
| Experimental setup |
| 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 |
||
| Line 169: | Line 175: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 4. |
! 4.4.2. |
||
| Transaction data |
|||
| Where we found the data and what we did with it |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| Methodology for evaluation |
| 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) |
||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 5. |
! 5.1. |
||
| Design of Ptrim system |
| Design of Ptrim system |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 5. |
! 5.2. |
||
| Ptrim implementation details |
| 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. |
||
| Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 5. |
! 5.3. |
||
| Composite experiment setup |
| Composite experiment setup |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| Implementation |
|||
| How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. |
| How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. |
||
| |
| |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 5. |
! 5.3.2. |
||
| Data crawling |
| Data crawling |
||
| How we did this |
| How we did this |
||
| Line 217: | Line 223: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 6. |
! 6.1. |
||
| Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
| Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes |
||
| Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses |
| Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses |
||
| Line 223: | Line 229: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 6. |
! 6.2. |
||
| Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
| Evaluation of composite trial outcomes |
||
| Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses |
| Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses |
||
| Line 229: | Line 235: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 6. |
! 6.3. |
||
| Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
| Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 241: | Line 247: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 7. |
! 7.1. |
||
| Security |
| Security |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 247: | Line 253: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 7. |
! 7.2. |
||
| Collusion detection |
| Collusion detection |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 253: | Line 259: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 7. |
! 7.3. |
||
| Insuring insurance transactions |
| Insuring insurance transactions |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
| Line 259: | Line 265: | ||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! 7. |
! 7.4. |
||
| Further experiments and simulation studies |
| Further experiments and simulation studies |
||
| ... |
| ... |
||
Revision as of 15:14, 30 June 2008
Publications Plan
- Currently I only focus on thesis write-up. There are no specific goals for other publications.
- 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 | ... | ||
| 1.1. | Overview of my research and motivation | Use Ptrim S1 | ||
| 1.2. | Main results and original contributions | ... | ||
| 1.3. | Organisation of thesis | ... | ||
| 2. | Theory and background | ... | ||
| 2.1. | Introduction – big picture | ... | ||
| 2.2. | P2P networks and architectures | Based on ACM survey | Almost ready, need some formatting | 1D |
| 2.3. | Transaction processing systems | |||
| 2.3.1 | Online Transaction processing systems | Compared to centralized, characteristics, requirements (use e-commerce paper) | Almost ready, need some formatting | 1D |
| 2.3.2 | Definitions and requirements analysis | Almost ready, need some formatting | 1D | |
| 2.4. | Centralized and distributed reputation management | Survey of current approaches | ||
| 2.5. | Market-based risk management | Financial derivatives, risk management, market efficiency. Use Ptrim S2.1. S2.4 | ||
| 2.6. | 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 | ... | ||
| 3.1. | Definition of problem we want to attack: Managing P2P transaction risk | Includes general and also specific goals | ||
| 3.2. | Limits of research scope | Things that are not our problem ( References to Section 7). | ||
| 3.3. | Proposed solution: A Market based approach | At an abstract level. Use patent literature for ideas. | ||
| 3.3.1. | Relation to other approaches | Complementary to reputation management, explain how the two could cooperate. | ||
| 3.3.2. | 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 | ... | ||
| 4.1. | Description of our overall approach | We’ll build a prototype and test it, and we’ll also run composite experiments and evaluate the results. | ||
| 4.2. | 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. | ||
| 4.3. | Prototype system trials | What sort of trials we ran with the prototype. Use Ptrim S4.1. Which hypotheses do we address here. | ||
| 4.3.1. | Experimental setup | How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. | ||
| 4.3.2. | Methodology for evaluation | How will we evaluate the results. | ||
| 4.4. | Composite experimental trials | Use Ptrim S4.2. Which hypotheses do we address here. | ||
| 4.4.1. | Experimental setup | How the experiment will work, software tool, subjects, questionnaires etc. Use Ptrim S | ||
| 4.4.2. | 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 | ||
| 5.1. | Design of Ptrim system | ... | ||
| 5.2. | Ptrim implementation details | How we implemented this: Java, jxta, messaging, etc Use Ptrim S3.2. | ||
| 5.3. | Composite experiment setup | |||
| 5.3.1 | Implementation | How we implemented this: Perl/CGI/MySQL etc. | ||
| 5.3.2. | Data crawling | How we did this | ||
| 6. | Results, evaluation and discussion | ... | ||
| 6.1. | Evaluation of prototype trial outcomes | Use Ptrim S5.1. Refer to hypotheses | ||
| 6.2. | Evaluation of composite trial outcomes | Use Ptrim S5.2. Refer to hypotheses | ||
| 6.3. | Discussion of overall findings and implications for our approach | ... | ||
| 7. | Future work | Mention these also in Section 3.b. | ||
| 7.1. | Security | ... | ||
| 7.2. | Collusion detection | ... | ||
| 7.3. | Insuring insurance transactions | ... | ||
| 7.4. | 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.