Reading Papers

2. Reading Papers • Need to read efficiently • A survey paper or grant could have 100-200 references. • Read 50+ articles a year • Need to know how your papers is going to be read. (???)

3. Reading Papers • What do you want to learn? • Just generally interested in the topic • Want to know if the subject is relevant to your research • Want to know what the authors’ concluded • Want to learn about a new area of research • How are you going to find out efficiently?

4. Reading Order • Title – think about what it means • Authors – do you know them? • Keywords – semi-useful (ACM categories) • Abstract – read more? • Conclusions or Introduction – read more? • Introduction or Conclusions –read more? • Results • Methods or background • Background or methods

5. Reading Order • Is the topic relevant? (title and abstract) • Is it new? (abstract) • What did they find? (abstract and conclusions) • What does it mean? (abstract and conclusions) • Are the results relevant? (conclusions and results (and methods)) • Are the results trustworthy? (results and methods) • Should I use their techniques? (methods)

6. Reading Papers • Write on the paper • Important points • Weaknesses • Counter-arguments • Relevant papers • Promising citations

7. General Writing - Structure • Broad and general to narrow and specific • In the whole paper • In sections • In paragraphs • The read should know what’s coming next • Use topic sentences • Introductory Sections • Introductory Paragraphs

8. General Writing - Flow • The reader should usually know what’s coming next – the paper should flow • Sentence to sentence • Paragraph to paragraph • Section to section • Flow • Topics – the reader should know when and why you are changing topics • Ideas – the reader should know when and why you are introducing a new idea

9. Title and Abstract • Get the reader interested • Present the subject • Present the significance • Present the work • Present the results

10. Title • Try to include: • Research subject (often implied) • Problem • Work • Results • Can’t always get them all in. • Avoid cute

11. Abstract • Write it Last or First? • First – because if you can’t you don’t know what you are doing • Last – because the emphasis may change as you write the paper • Do both! Write a rough version first, the write a new version last.

12. Abstract (short form) • Four to six sentences: • Problem/significance/context • Your work • Results/impact • Adjust to your venue • Often longer • Extended abstracts are something different.

13. Abstract - example Current fault attacks against public key cryptography focus on traditional schemes, such as RSA and ECC, and, to a lesser extent, on primitives such as XTR. However, bilinear maps, or pairings, have presented theorists with a new and increasingly popular way of constructing cryptographic protocols. Most notably, this has resulted in efficient methods for Identity Based Encryption (IBE). Since identity-based cryptography seems an ideal partner for identity aware devices such as smart-cards, in this paper, we examine the security of concrete pairing instantiations in terms of fault attack. Computers, IEEE Transactions onPublication Date: Sept. 2006Volume: 55,  Issue: 9On page(s): 1075- 1080

14. Abstract - example In the mouse trigeminal pathway, sensory inputs from distinctfacial structures, such as whiskers or lower jaw and lip, aretopographically mapped onto the somatosensory cortex throughrelay stations in the thalamus and hindbrain. In the developinghindbrain, the mechanisms generating such maps remain elusive.We found that in the principal sensory nucleus, the whisker-relatedmap is contributed by rhombomere 3–derived neurons, whereasthe rhombomere 2–derived progeny supply the lower jawand lip representation. Moreover, early Hoxa2 expression inneuroepithelium prevents the trigeminal nerve from ectopicallyprojecting to the cerebellum, whereas late expression in theprincipal sensory nucleus promotes selective arborization ofwhisker-related afferents and topographic connectivity to thethalamus. Hoxa2 inactivation further results in the absenceof whisker-related maps in the postnatal brain. Thus, Hoxa2-and rhombomere 3–dependent cues determine the whiskerarea map and are required for the assembly of the whisker-to-barrelsomatosensory circuit. Science 8 September 2006:Vol. 313. no. 5792, pp. 1408 - 1413

15. Abstract • Work and results should be precise, refutable • Avoid • “We study …” • “We examine …” • “We tried X and it works.” Works? • Use • “We show …” • “We implemented X under the following conditions … The results show that X has 10% fewer errors…”

16. Abstract - Examples “…in this paper, we examine the security of concrete pairing instantiations in terms of fault attack.” (end of abstract) – And the results are? “We use simulation to show that attack traffic can only degrade legitimate traffic to a limited extent, …” - Reasonable, but what is limited? “Thus, Hoxa2-and rhombomere 3–dependent cues determine the whiskerarea map and are required for the assembly of the whisker-to-barrelsomatosensory circuit.” - Determine and required are solid, definite terms

17. Keywords • Use ones standard in the field • Use terms you want to introduce

18. Introduction and Background • Introduction – Get the reader interested • Why is it important? • What did you do? • What were your results? • Background • More context • Why is this paper important • NOT a laundry list of related papers • (Move some to the discussion)

19. Introduction • Why is it important? • Broad problem/question • ->narrow problem/question • -> (potential) solution • -> result • Disease X is important. • Disease X has similarities to condition Y. • Condition Y is due to Z. • We hypothesize Z has a similar role in Disease X. • We test… • We find…

20. Introduction • Other elements to include • What’s missing from the existing literature (implied or explicit) “Currently the link between Z and X is unknown” • What your hypothesis/question is (can be explicit) “In this paper we test the hypothesis that…” • What you did (in general terms) “We used method X to …” • The results

21. Background • Not a laundry list of papers • Only include papers that directly apply to your research • Strengthen the connections made in the introduction • Should lead to your research “Thus, it makes sense to test Z’s role in Disease X.”

22. Methods • Replicable • Cite others • Justify choices • Why did you use Wormstrom’s method and not Farnsworth’s? • Explain how the experiments test the hypothesis

23. Results • Present relevant results. • Present the results that you promised in the methods section. • Tell the read what they should see/learn • What does the data show – be explicit and exact • Say it in the text and in the figure captions • Figures (w/ captions) and text should both (mostly) stand on their own.

24. Conclusion/Discussion • Emphasize the key results • Summarize • Generalizations? • Related problems? • Future work?