Research Methods In Computing: Writing A Research Proposal

2y ago
44 Views
2 Downloads
760.99 KB
20 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Elisha Lemon
Transcription

Research Methods in Computing:Writing a Research ProposalKhurshid AhmadProfessor of Computer ScienceDepartment of Computer Science,Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.Presentation for Trinity CS post-grads,1April 2011, DublinWriting a Research Proposal Writing a Research ProposalA research proposal is similar in a numberof ways to a project proposal; however, aresearch proposal addresses a particularproject: academic or scientific research.Thanks to Joe Touch for “one ping”1

Writing a Research Proposal The forms and procedures for such researchare well defined by the field of study, soguidelines for research proposals aregenerally more exacting than less formalproject proposals.Research proposals contain extensiveliterature reviews and must offer convincingsupport of need for the research study beingproposed.http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htmResearch Proposal What is the question that this proposaladdresses?Why is this problem significant?How will the question be addressed?What will be the social, economic, ethical andpsychological impact of your project.What is the value of this research to thepeople of Ireland?2

Research Proposal You will have to present this proposal in theform of a poster presentation. (50%)The presentation will be judged by a group ofacademics and research administrators.(40%)You will have to write a ‘press release’ of yourproposal that should be intelligible to aninformed non-scientist. (10%)Writing a Research ProposalINSIGHT: Video Analysis and SelectiveZooming using Semantic Models of HumanPresence and Activity (c. 0.5 Million Sterling,2004-2007)INSIGHT is a project funded by one of the UKresearch councils (EPSRC the nearest equivalent ofScience Foundation Ireland) and [the UK Ministry ofDefence] under the EPSRC Technologies for CrimePrevention and Detection Programme. INSIGHT aimsto advance techniques for semantic content analysis ofCCTV recordings for automatic semantic videotagging, search and pro-active sampling by:http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htm3

Writing a Research ProposalINSIGHT: Video Analysis and Selective Zoomingusing Semantic Models of Human Presence andActivity(1) Developing models for fully automated semantic-tagging of CCTV recordingsbased on holistic human presence detection and abnormal event / activityrecognition, e.g. monitoring unmanned sites and buildings and tosignificantly reduce the false alarms triggered by existing Video MotionDetection systems.(2) Developing models for event and activity based visual topic spotting andscene change detection for semantic decomposition and automatic sorting ofCCTV recordings over time, e.g. automatically detecting in video aggressivehuman behaviour on buses, trains or in front of buildings.(3) Developing models for automated selective zooming and super-resolution inCCTV recordings with variable levels of details, e.g. to synthesize in arbitraryvirtual views good-quality close-up images of a face or vehicle number-platein order to improve the accuracy of automatic face-recognition and ANPR(Automatic Number Plate Recognition), and to increase the value of imageryevidence captured in low-resolution by CCTV cameras.http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htmWriting a Research ProposalINSIGHT: Video Analysis and Selective Zoomingusing Semantic Models of Human Presence andActivity(1) Developed models for automated semantic-tagging of CCTVvideo based on holistic human presence detection andabnormal event / activity recognition;(2)Developed models for event and activity based visual topicspotting and scene change detection for semanticsegmentation of CCTV video;(3)Developed algorithms for selective zooming / superresolution in CCTV video, in particular to cope withvariations in 3D pose change, expressiondeformation and lighting changes.http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htm4

Writing a Research Proposal:A research ‘grid’DEVELOPELABORATION w2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htmWriting a Research ICAPPLICATIONIMPROVEMENT antictagging ofCCTVrecordingsbased on holistichuman presencedetection andabnormalevent / activityrecognition,e.g.monitoringunmannedsites andbuildingsand tosignificantlyreduce the falsealarms triggeredby existing VideoMotion Detectionsystems.http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htm5

Writing a Research ProposalThe purpose of your research proposal is not.To describethe WizWozsystem Your reader does not have a WizWoz She is primarily interested in re-usablebrain-stuff, not executable artefactsWriting a Research ProposalContributions should be refutableNO!YES!We describe the WizWozsystem. It is really cool.We give the syntax and semantics of alanguage that supports concurrentprocesses (Section 3). Its innovativefeatures are.We study its propertiesWe prove that the type system is sound,and that type checking is decidable(Section 4)We have used WizWoz inpracticeWe have built a GUI toolkit in WizWoz,and used it to implement a text editor(Section 5). The result is half the lengthof the Java version.Simon Peyton Jones, Microsoft Research, Cambridge6

Writing a Research ProposalThe truth: credit is not like moneyGiving credit to others does not diminish thecredit you get from your paper Warmly acknowledge people who have helped you Be generous to the competition. “In his inspiring paper[Foo98] Foogle shows. We develop his foundation inthe following ways.” Acknowledge weaknesses in your approachSimon Peyton Jones, Microsoft Research, CambridgeCredit is not like moneyFailing to give credit to others cankill your paperIf you imply that an idea is yours, and thereferee knows it is not, then either You don’t know that it’s an old idea (bad) You do know, but are pretending it’s yours(very bad)Simon Peyton Jones, Microsoft Research, Cambridge7

Research Proposal REVIEW PROCESSThe applicant is asked to designate the panel in which he/shewishes the proposal to be reviewed. Descriptions of the RFPreview panels are available on the SFI website. All proposals willbe reviewed by international panels of reviewers selected by SFIstaff. The reviewers will be sent a number of proposals to reviewand will submit their written reviews to SFI prior to the panelmeeting. The reviewers will then convene as a panel to discussthe merits of all the proposals in their research area, taking intoaccount the reviews already submitted by the panel members. Arapporteur for each proposal will be assigned from among thepanel members and he/she will provide a written summary of thepanel discussion. This summary and the overall recommendationwill reflect the consensus of the panel and will be provided to SFIbefore the end of the panel meeting. SFI will use theserecommendations to make funding decisions.Writing a Research ProposalBEWARE: Behaviour based Enhancement of Wide-AreaSituational Awareness in a Distributed Network of CCTVCameras(1) (a) To develop a model for robust detection and tagging of people over wideareas of different physical sites captured by a distributed network of cameras,e.g. monitoring the activities of a person travelling through a city/cities.(b) To develop a model for global situational awareness enhancement viacorrelating behaviours across a network of cameras located at differentphysical sites, and for real-time detection of abnormal behaviours in publicspace across camera views; The model must be able to cope with changesin visual context and on definitions of abnormality, e.g. what is abnormalneeds be modelled by the time of the day, locations, and scene context.(c) To develop a model for automatic selection and controlling of Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ)/embedded smart cameras(including wireless ones) in a surveillance network to 'zoom into' people based on behaviour analysis using a globalsituational awareness model therefore achieving active sampling of higher quality visual evidence on the fly in a globalcontext, e.g. when a car enters a restricted zone which has also been spotted stopping unusually elsewhere, the optimallysituated PTZ/embedded smart camera is to be activated to perform adaptive image content selection and capturing of higherresolution imagery of, e.g. the face of the driver.http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htm8

Writing a Research ProposalINSIGHT begat BEWARE – another projectfor Prof Gong for the next 3 years (20072010)SpecificapplicationGENERICBEWARE Preamble: There are now large networks of CCTV cameras collecting colossalamounts of video data, of which many deploy not only fixed but also mobile cameras onwireless connections with an increasing number of the cameras being either PTZ controllableor embedded smart cameras. A multi-camera system has the potential for gaining betterviewpoints resulting in both improved imaging quality and more relevant details beingcaptured. However, more is not necessarily better. Such a system can also cause overflow ofinformation and confusion if data content is not analysed in real-time to give the correctcamera selection and capturing decision. Moreover, current PTZ cameras are mostlycontrolled manually by operators based on ad hoc criteria. There is an urgent need for thedevelopment of automated systems to monitor behaviours of people cooperatively across adistributed network of cameras and making on-the-fly decisions for more effective contentselection in data capturing. Todate, there is no system capable of performing such tasksand fundamental problems need to be tackled. This project will develop novel techniquesfor video-based people tagging (consistent labelling) and behaviour monitoring across adistributed network of CCTV cameras for the enhancement of global situational awareness ina wide area. More specifically, we will focus on developing three critical underpinningcapabilities:ELABORATIONImprovements to existing serviceshttp://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htmWriting a Research Proposalhttp://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htm9

Writing a Research Proposal:A research ‘grid’ELABORATION tp://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/ tcwritingcenter/Forms of Writing/ResearchProposal.htmComputing:a Professional DisciplineThe moral of the story: Computing is an expanding discipline; allpervasive and hence with diffuseboundaries;Computing can be viewed as a science or abranch of engineering, but this would besaying that medicine is medical science orthe law is a social science;Computing is a professional subject wherethere challenges theoretical and practicalalike10

Plagiarism: THE SCHÖN SAGAOctober 2001:Hendrik Schon andZhenan Bao: A singlemolecule transistor madeout of organic material;The end of silicon-based,highly toxic process ofmaking transistorinvolving rare metals;The new world of freelyavailable organicmolecules to buildtransistor.Plagiarism: THE SCHÖN SAGA11

The Saga Continues with another nameThe Saga Continues with another name12

To peer or not to peer : The Einstein SagaKennefick, Daniel. (2005). ‘Einstein Versus the Physical Review’. Physics Today, Vol. 58 (September2005). pp /vol58no9p43 48.pdfScientific misconductScientific misconduct consists offabrication:making up of datamanipulation of research data and processesplagiarismself-plagiarismviolation of ethical standardsghost-writing13

Scientific misconduct:One in Three Scientists Confesses to Having SinnedActionplagiarism or falsification%age( )1.5%"changed the design, methodology or results of astudy in response to pressure from a fundingsource;15.5%admitted overlooking others’ use of flawed data;12.5%had circumvented minor aspects of requirementsregarding the use of human subjects."7.6%Meredith Wadman, One in Three Scientists Confesses to Having Sinned, 435 Nature 718 (2005);Scientific misconductReasons for scientific misconduct include:1. career pressure2. believing that one knows the right answer3. ability to get away with itReasons for retraction of papers mainly consistof:a. errors (i.e. irreproducible results)b. fraud or misconduct (e.g. in Schön’s case)c. political reasons (e.g. in Galileo’s case)(Goodstein 2002)14

Plagiarism: THE SCHÖN SAGAHendrick J. Schön obtained his PhD from the University ofKonstanz (Germany) in 1997 and worked at the Bell Labs (USA)until 2002.During 2001 and 2002, his works were hailed as remarkablebreakthroughs in condensed matter physics, and solid statedevices particularly for his work on single molecule transistorsand on high temperature superconductors:organic single molecule transistors – that would have taken us beyond theMoore’s law and increased the number of transistors on a chip way beyondtoday’s technology- andcontrollable high-temperature superconductors (superconductors work well at–270o C and high temperature here means –170oC) will increase memoryspeeds and processor power by orders of magnitude.Schön was being nominated for the Nobel PrizePlagiarism: THE SCHÖN SAGAHendrick J. Schön has reported to have published over 80 research papers all in leadingjournals of science and of physics including Nature, Science, and the American PhysicalSociety’s Physical Review amongst others. All these journals have a ‘high impact factor’.Here is a sample of 15 papers out of 45 examined in detail after its publication. He took abreak for stScienceSeptemberAll thesepapers havenow beenretractedpublicly – 45 ofall his 80 or sopublications.Nature &Appl Phys LettersOctoberNovemberScience & NatureNatureDecemberAppl. Phys. LettersAppl. Phys. Lett & Science15

CASE STUDY: THE SCHÖN SAGA:Not all misconduct is linguistic!Two experiments carried out, by Schon and colleagues,very different temperatures were reported to haveidentical noise Schon suggested that he hadsubmitted the same graph twice by accident;But then another reader found the same noise in apaper describing a third experiment.More instances of duplicate data were found inSchön's work.CASE STUDY: THE SCHÖN SAGA:Not all misconduct is p.pdf16

CASE STUDY: THE SCHÖN SAGA Prof. Leonardo Cassuto, described perhaps the greatest fraud in scientificpublishing in recent times. It described work that was supposed to havetaken place in Lucent Laboratories (formerly Bell Labs). Dr. HendrickSchon published about 90 papers in 3 or 4 years, an almost unheard ofrate of production. All papers had been submitted to reputable journals,including the prestigious "Nature" and "Science" and had been peerreviewed and published.They described experiments which claimed to show organic crystalswhich had been made to behave as semiconductors, including pentaceneas photovoltaic, and C60 (buckyballs) superconducting at lowtemperatures. Dr. Schon seemed to be heading for a Nobel Prize. Afterpublication, other scientists attempted to repeat the results withoutsuccess: this was the first warning of something amiss. Someone pointedout that the same graph appeared in two separate papers, with differentaxes, purporting to be the result of separate experiments: this was thesecond warning.CASE STUDY: THE SCHÖN SAGA The Committee looked at 24 allegations from 20 differentsources with over 100 different complaints; 16 cases ofscientific misconduct were proven, 2 had no direct link tohis work, and 6 were not used in publication. He was aksedto, and did, retract 25 of his largely co-authoredpublications in the high impact journals. Only Hendrick Schon was reprimanded, he wasdismissed by Bell Labs in September 2002 and in June2004 the University of Konstanz withdrew his PhD becausehe brought the discipline in disrepute. His thesis has notbeen criticised for plagiarism and it is understood that hislawyers are in touch with the University authorities.17

Beasley ReportThe allegations investigated in the BeasleyReport were:1. data substitution2. unrealistic precision (of data precisionsbeyond that expected in real experiment)3. contradictory physics ( results that wereinconsistent with stated device parameters andprevailing physical understanding)Conclusions of the Beasley Report The Committee found falsification or fabrication of datain 16 out of the 24 cases they examined.Substitution of curves or parts of them to representmaterials or devices in order to produce a moreconvincing representation of behaviour observed wasfound to be scientific misconduct.Schön did not follow generally accepted practiceconcerning the maintenance of traceable records nor didhe retain original data in a form with which criticalphysical claims could be verified or examined.The Committee found all coauthors of Hendrik Schön inthe work in question completely cleared of any scientificmisconduct18

Report of the Committee “Liability inScience” at the University of Konstanz It was limited to the papers that originated inKonstanz (papers on photovoltaics)The main results are not questionableInconsistencies in the publications were foundbut the documentation provided was not enoughto prove fabrication of dataInconsistencies did not affect conclusionsThe committee concluded that on this basis nodeliberate manipulation could be inferredReport of the Committee “Liability inScience” at the University of Konstanz The remark in the Beasley Report that mostpapers had originated in Konstanz only explainsthe circumstances.The committee also found that there are nogrounds to accuse Schön of gross negligence.Schön’s behaviour lies in a ‘grey area’ hence hisscientific misconduct cannot be proved.The final conclusion of the Committee is thatSchön’s mistakes can be corrected by Errata inthe journals concerned.19

University of Konstanz ‘rejects’ Schon’sthesis Schon’s thesis was rejected by theUniversity of Konstanz in 2004 ongrounds of unbecoming scientificconduct. Schon appealed against the decisionand the University took 5 more yearsto decide!Report of the Doctoral Committee,University of Konstanz20

Writing a Research Proposal 1 KhurshidAhmad Professor of Computer Science Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Presentation for Trinity CS post-grads, April 2011, Dublin Writing a Research Proposal A research proposal is similar in a number of ways to a project proposal; however, a research proposal addresses a .

Related Documents:

Cloud Computing J.B.I.E.T Page 5 Computing Paradigm Distinctions . The high-technology community has argued for many years about the precise definitions of centralized computing, parallel computing, distributed computing, and cloud computing. In general, distributed computing is the opposite of centralized computing.

distributed. Some authors consider cloud computing to be a form of utility computing or service computing. Ubiquitous computing refers to computing with pervasive devices at any place and time using wired or wireless communication. Internet computing is even broader and covers all computing paradigms over the Internet.

Chapter 10 Cloud Computing: A Paradigm Shift 118 119 The Business Values of Cloud Computing Cost savings was the initial selling point of cloud computing. Cloud computing changes the way organisations think about IT costs. Advocates of cloud computing suggest that cloud computing will result in cost savings through

Best Practice Book for IELTS Writing. Table of Contents IELTS Writing 1 IELTS Writing 9 IELTS Writing - Overview 9 IELTS Academic Writing 10 IELTS ACADEMIC WRITING 10 IELTS General Writing 11 IELTS Writing Task General (Task 1) 12 Sample 1 12 Sample 2 12 Sample 3 13 Sa

Academic Writing Quiz xvii Part 1 The Writing Process 1 1.1 Background to Writing 3 The purpose of academic writing 3 Common types of academic writing 4 The format of long and short writing tasks 4 The features of academic writing 6 Some other common text features 6 Simple and longer sentences 7 Writing in paragraphs 8 1.2 Reading: Finding .

Mobile Cloud Computing Cloud Computing has been identified as the next generation’s computing infrastructure. Cloud Computing allows access to infrastructure, platforms, and software provided by cloud providers at low cost, in an on-demand fashion. Mobile Cloud Computing is introduced as an int

2.1 Coordination of Edge Computing and Cloud Computing The coordination of edge computing and cloud computing enables the digital transformation of a wide variety of enterprise activities. Cloud computing can focus on non-real-time and long-period Big Data analytics, and supports periodic maintenance and service decision– making.

2019 Architectural Standards Page 5 of 11 The collection areas must be accessible to disabled persons while convenient to tenants and service vehicles. Place dumpsters on concrete slabs with concrete approach aprons at least 10’-0” in depth. J. Signage and Fixtures: Building signage must meet the requirements of local 911 service providers. Illuminate the .