The project is to do some original research in parallel computers (e.g., write a simulator and gather some simple numbers) or to re-validate data found in a published paper. You will be graded on how well you define your problem, survey previous work, design and conduct experiments, and present your results. The goal to shoot for is conference paper, like the ones in your reader. Since time is limited, however, the above goal is hard to reach, and I will reward those that aim high even if they do not completely succeed. The key is insuring that some aspects of your work are completely done; it is very hard to grade a project where the simulator did not quite work. This type of project is especially recommended for students considering a Ph.D. and is best done in groups of two. With my permission, project groups of three are permissible.
Alternatively, you may work alone to write a paper that surveys an area within computer architecture. The paper should: summarize work in an area, giving extensive references, present opinions of others for and against various options (with references), and conclude with your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of arguments presented above. You will be graded on the completeness of your survey, the accuracy of your summaries, the support you give for your opinions, and the quality of your presentation. Since a survey paper is "safer" than a research project, I will hold survey papers to a higher standard of completeness and analysis of the literature.
I normally accept no late assignments. For this project, papers turned upto 24 hours hours late will be accepted with a 25% penalty. Don't avail yourself of this option; your hard work deserves full credit.
Proposals may be turned in earlier to get earlier feedback. Feel free to come and talk with me during my office hours or by appointment. Proposals should be about one-two pages long. They should include:
Progress Reports should include a revised version of the proposal plus one page describing accomplishments so far. Concentrate on describing sub-tasks completed, rather than the tasks started. For example, say ``completed simulator design at subroutine level'' rather than saying ``started writing simulator''.
We will divide up the last few lectures into 20-minute-ish conference-style talks. All group members should deliver part of the talk. The talk should give highlights of the final report, including the problem, motivation, results, conclusions, and possible future work. Time limits will be enforced to let everyone present. Please, practice your talk to make it better and see how long it is. Have a plan for what slides to skip if you get behind. Please see Oral Presentation Advice, including David Patterson's How to Give a Bad Talk
Reports should consist of an abstract, body and optional appendices, much like a conference paper. The abstract should summarize the contributions of the report in one or two paragraphs. The length of the body should be the equivalent of 15-20 pages at double-spaced 10-point. Additional supporting material of any length can be put in appendices. I will read the body and only skim appendices. See your reader for examples.
Limited to those at University of Wisconsin-Madison