EE 281 Course Project - Update

Course Project - Update

Fall 2017

The report is due on December 7 in class. Your submission will be graded in three parts. The total will be out of 20 marks.

Part 1: The high-level research-activity review (5 marks)

Describe how your review of the conference/journal literature influenced your choice of topic. This part of the literature review is less formal than the others. Here are some sample questions you may wish to consider:

  • What conferences did you look through?

  • What topics did these conferences cover?

  • Are these conferences well-established or relatively new?

  • Have the topics remained consistent or have they shifted over time?

  • How influential and relevant are these conferences?

  • Has the influence and/or relevance of these conferences changed over time?

  • How did any of the trends above influence your choice of topic?

You may also wish to answer the same questions for any individual researchers whose work inspired you. I will evaluate the breadth of your review and whether or not you said anything interesting or insightful.

Part 2: The high-level topic review (5 marks)

Give an overview of your topic and the research being done in it. Here are some questions you may wish to consider:

  • How has the research in this topic evolved over time?

  • What are some significant papers in your topic? Explain.

  • Describe some of the major challenges and unresolved issues of this topic.

  • Where do you see the field heading in the future?

  • What impact does/will this topic have within the overall field of networking?

I will evaluate the breadth of your summary and whether or not you said anything interesting or insightful.

Part 3: The critique (10 marks)

The evaluation criteria for the critique is the same as phase 1 in the original course project description. Some additional guidelines/highlights to consider:

  • The critique is based on three selected papers.

  • Try to avoid using survey papers in your analysis.

  • Identify the key ideas/contributions in each of the papers in your critique

  • Make sure to analyze/compare/deconstruct these ideas in relation to each other.

I will evaluate the depth of your analysis and whether or not your critique was interesting. Good luck!