Proposal: At Lecture Fri Mar 28
Progress Report: Email by 1:00pm on Mon Apr 21
Talks: At Lecture on Mon May 5 & Wed May 7
Project Report: Hardcopy in my mailbox, 8:59 AM Tue May 13
The project has two options. The first option is to do some original
research in computer architecture (e.g.,
write a simulator and gather some simple numbers) or to re-validate data
found in a published paper.
This type of project is recommended to all, but especially for students
considering a Ph.D.
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 should use groups of two.
With my permission, project groups of three are permissible.
In the second option, 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
I normally accept no late assignments. For this project, papers turned
up to 24 hours hours late will be accepted with
a 25% penalty. Don't avail yourself of this option; your hard work
deserves full credit.
I strongly recommend that you come by my office hours (a) before finalizing you r project proposal and (b) before writing your progress report. My experience can aid you and not re-discovering many past mistakes.
Proposals may be turned in earlier to get earlier feedback.
Proposals should be about one-two pages long.
They should include:
- A description of your topic,
- A statement of why you think the topic is interesting or important,
- (for projects with original research)
a description of the methods you will use to evaluate your ideas,
as well as a multi-step plan (e.g., modify simulator to
(1) count occurences of FOO,
(2) fake FOO solution,
(3) do simple FOO solution, and
(4) do advanced FOO solution)
- References to at least three papers you have obtained.
(The text and the papers we've read point to many papers. See also
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture,
Proceedings of the High-Performance Computer Architecture,
Proceedings of the conference on Architectural Support for Programming
Languages and Operating Systems,
IEEE Transactions on Computers, ACM
Transactions on Computer Systems, IEEE Computer, IEEE Micro,
IEEE Transactions on
Parallel and Distributed Systems.)
- Near the end of the course web page are a couple pointers to on-line
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 modification to watch and fake FOO''
rather than saying ``started simulator modifications''.
We will divide up the last few lectures into 20-minute-ish
conference-style talks. Depending on class size, some talk
may be scheduled at alternative times.
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
Presentation Advice, including David Patterson's How to Give a
Bad Talk and K. Compton and M.L.Chang's
Presentations (...and how to not give one).
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.
You are encouraged to come up with your own topic. Ideally, the topic
will be related to your current research interests.
I encourage you to consider larger projects where you combine this course
project with either (a) your current (supported) research or (b) the
course project of a related course. A larger project can deepen your
research experience. In all cases, it is imperative that
such overlaps be disclosed at the proposal stage so that we can
address the scope of research that will be required. Moreover, for
option (b), the other instructor must also approve of the arrangement.
More on possible topics.
Limited to those at University of Wisconsin-Madison.