Scientific Writing Some personal observations

1
Scientific Writing Some personal observations

• Kim Guldstrand Larsen

UCb
2
Tools and BRICS
Applications
visualSTATE
UPPAAL
SPIN
PVS
HOL
ALF
TLP

• Semantics
• Concurrency Theory
• Abstract Interpretation
• Compositionality
• Models for real-time
• hybrid systems

• Algorithmic
• (Timed) Automata Theory
• Graph Theory
• BDDs
• Polyhedra Manipulation

• Logic
• Temporal Logic
• Modal Logic
• MSOL

3
A very complex system
Klaus Havelund, NASA
4
Spectacular Software Bugs

• ARIANE-5
• INTEL Pentium II floating-point division
  470 Mill US
• Baggage handling system, Denver 1.1 Mill
  US /day for 9 months
• Mars Pathfinder
• Radiation theraphy, Therac-25
• .

5
Embedded Systems

• 80 of all existing software is embedded in
  interacting devices.
• Demand on increasing functionality with minimal
  resources.

6
How?

• Unified Model State Machine!

y!
b?
a
Output ports
x
Input ports
b?
y
b
a?
x!
Control states
7
Tamagotchi
C
A
B
ALIVE
Passive
Feeding
Light
Meal
A
B
A
Health Health-1
A
B
Clean
Care
Snack
A
Health0 or Age2.000
A
A
Play
Discipline
Medicine
DEAD
Tick
A
A
HealthHealth-1 AgeAge1
8
Digital Watch
StatechartUML, David HAREL
9
SYNCmaster
10
SPIN, Gerald Holzmann ATT
11
visualSTATE
VVS w Baan Visualstate, DTU (CIT project)

• Hierarchical state systems
• Flat state systems
• Multiple and inter-related state machines
• Supports UML notation
• Device driver access

12
Larsen et al
UPPAAL
13
Tool Support
System Description A
No! Debugging Information
TOOL
Yes, Prototypes Executable Code Test
sequences
Requirement F
Tools UPPAAL, visualSTATE, SPIN,
ESTEREL, TeleLogic, Statemate,
Formalcheck,..
14
Tool Support
System Description A
No! Debugging Information
TOOL
Yes, Prototypes Executable Code Test
sequences
Requirement F

• Mathematical Formalisms for modelling and
  specifying System Behaviour
• Methods for Analysis Algorithms/Datastructu
  res
• Experiment/Implementation
• Case Studies
• Tool Building

15
Writing Scientific Paper(s)
16
Collaboration
L. Aceto P. Bouyer A. Burgueno Hans Hüttel
Jens C. Godskesen Michael Zeeberg U. Holmer
Karlis Cerans J.H. Andersen J.
Niederman F. Laroussinie P. Pettersson H.E.
Jensen J.H. Andersen Kristian
Lund Bodentien Nicky O. Vestergaard Jacob Friis
Jakob
T. Iversen M. Laursen R.G. Madsen S.K.
Mortensen C.B. Thomasen F. Cassez Alexandre
David Oliver Möller Ansgar Fehnker Judi
Romijn Tobias Amnell Pedro R. D'Argenio
Bertrand Jeannet Frits Vaandrager M.
Hendriks Henning Dierks Radek Pelanek Zoltan
Esik
Anders Børjesson Wang Yi P. Pettersson C.
Weise Justin Pearso J. Staunstrup H.R. Andersen
H. Hulgaard G. Behrmann K. Kristoffersen J.
Lind-Nielsen H. Leerberg N.B. Theilgaard T.
Hune Bengt Jonsson J. Bengtsson W.O.D.
Griffioen F. Larsson    
Arne Skou J. Stage K. Nørmark U.H. Engberg
P.D. Mosses E. Brinksma W.R. Cleaveland T.
Margari B. Steffen S. Skyum G. Winskel Mogens
Nielsen Finn V. Jensen G. Boudol Bent
Thomsen Liu Xinxin Robin Milner Klaus Havelund
17
Writing a Paper / Papers

1. Work on a (relevant) CS question
2. Write a scientific paper
3. Submit the paper to an appropriate
   journal/conference
4. If accepted then
5. Add one line to CV
6. Present work at scientific meeting (and
   get ideas for the next papers)
7. Else Go to Step 1.
8. In any case Go to Step 1.

18
What is a Scientific Paper

• A scientific paper is a written and published
  report describing original research results
• Primary Publication, i.e.
• the first publication of original research
  results
• repeatable and testable
• available
• Technical report/web (I/we did it first)
• Conference paper (It works, its neat, and there
  is more to come)
• Journal
• Textbooks or research monographs

BRICS DBLP Bib Server
93
32
(10)
19
Why Do People Write Papers?

• Idealist Any scientific paper furthers our
  knowledge of the field. It is a contribution to
  the community of our peers.
• Realist My point of view is that Our currency
  is reputation (Moshe Vardi at our Research
  Evaluation). Good scientific papers are one of
  the means to increase reputation in our
  scientific community. Our peers decide the
  weight of a primary publication (citations is a
  possible measure).

20
ww.citeseer.com
521. J. Ferrante 1882522. M. Lee 1882523.
A. Cox 1878524. R. Needham 1878525. J. Foley
1877526. F. Glover 1877527. K. Larsen
1873528. T. Dietterich 1872529. J.
Kubiatowicz 1871530. D. Lenoski 1871531. S.
Geman 1870532. D. Gelernter 1869533. J.
Kramer 1869534. Y. Yang 1861
.. 558. M. Lee 1510559. M. Maher 1509560.
J. Jaffar 1505561. J. Lenstra 1504562. A.
Swami 1503563. Z. Li 1502564. S. Hammarling
1502565. G. Stewart 1499566. D. Shmoys
1499567. K. Larsen 1495568. J. White
1494569. G. Winskel 1493570. L. Stockmeyer
1491571. X. Wang 1491
The 10.000 most cited CS authors out of 629.254
21
www.citeseer.com
Context   Doc     132.2 128 (6)   K.G. Larsen
and A. Skou. Bisimulation through probabilistic
testing (preliminary report). In Proc. 16th
ACM Symp. Princ. of Prog. Lang., pages 344--352,
1989. Context   Doc     67.4 46 (3)   J.
Bengtsson, K.G. Larsen, F. Larsson, P.
Pettersson, and W. Yi. UPPAAL- a tool suite
for the automatic verification of real-time
systems. In Proceedings of Hybrid Systems III.
LNCS 1066.pages 232-243. Spriger Verlag. 1996.
Context   Doc     42.1 39 (10)   K. G. Larsen
and L. Xinxin. Compositionality through an
operational semantics of contexts. Journal of
Logic and Computation, 1761--795, 1991.
Context   Doc     41.4 31 (0)   K. G. Larsen,
P. Pettersson, and W. Yi. Model-checking
for real-time systems. In Horst Reichel, editor,
Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Fundamentals of Computation Theory,
volume 965 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pages 62--88, Dresden, Germany, August
1995. Springer-Verlag. Context   Doc     34.3
21 (3)   Larsen, K. G., P. Pettersson and , Y.
Wang "UPPAAL in a nutshell". To appear
International Journal on Software Tools for
Technology Transfer, Springer Verlag,
September 1997.
22
www.citeseer.com
23
www.citeseer.com
24
www.citeseer.com
25
How to write a scientific paper

• The main message
• The preparation of a scientific paper has
  almost nothing to do with literary skill. It is a
  question of collaboration and organization.
• Rule of Thumb
• In your presentation, follow a logical
  progression from problem to solution.

26
Typical Organization

• Title / List of authors / Abstract
• Introduction / compelling example / related work
  / overview
• Development
• Conclusion (if any)
• Acknowledgments / references

27
Title

• It should be informative
• It should be concise
• It should be catchy / memorable
• It is best original, but it does not need to be
  funny
• The title is a label, not a sentence

28
Title examples

• Gérard Boudol, Kim G. Larsen Graphical versus
  Logical Specifications''
• Kim G. Larsen, Arne Skou "Bisimulation Through
  Probabilistic Testing
• Klaus Havelund, Kim G. Larsen The Fork
  Calculus''
• K.G. Larsen, F. Laroussinie, C.Weise From
  Timed Automata to Logic and Back''

29
Titles more examples

• Kim G. Larsen, Carsten Weise, Wang Yi and Justin
  Pearson Clock Difference Diagrams.''
• J. Lind-Nielsen, H.R. Andersen, G. Behrman, H.
  Hulgaard, K. Kristoffersen and K.G. Larsen
  Verification of Large State/Event Systems using
  Compositionality and Dependency Analysis
• F. Cassez, K.G. Larsen The Impressive Power
  of Stopwatches''
• Kim G. Larsen, Gerd Behrmann, Ed Brinksma, Ansgar
  Fehnker, Thomas Hune, Paul Pettersson, Judi
  Romijn As Cheap as Possible Efficient
  Cost-Optimal Reachability for Priced Timed
  Automata''
• G. Behrmann, K. G. Larsen, R. Pelanek To
  Store or Not to Store.

30
The List of Authors

• Alphabertically ordered
• Ordered by degrees of contribution
• Student first, supervisor second
• Any other scheme
• I have almost always used alphabetical order.

31
Authorship and Credits

• An author of a paper should be defined as one who
  takes intellectual responsibility for the
  research results being reported.
• Give lavish acknowledgments. (One feels miffed
  after reading a paper in which one has not been
  given proper credit.)Give credit where it is
  due. It does not cost anything, and it creates
  friends. Science is more of a social activity
  than you might think.

32
Introduction

• A bad beginning makes a bad ending
• FACT The introduction often decides the destiny
  of a paper. The introduction is often the only
  part of your paper that will be read.The
  introduction should not be (too) technical.

33
Introduction

• It should present and motivate first, and in all
  possible clarity, the nature and scope of the
  problem investigated.
• It should review related literature (to orient
  reader and please reviewer).
• Clearly state achievement of paper
• Overview the rest of the paper
• A compelling example is always good.
• Link to the Introduction during the remainder of
  the paper.

34
Pitfalls

• Exaggeration
• Seeking the effect for the sake of seeking
  effect this paper bridges a much need gap.
• Misspelling (always use a splel-checker)

35
How to Present Your Results

• Technical preliminaries/background (setting the
  scene)
• Progressive development of the material
  (organized in logical sections).
• Remember to state where your contribution lies.
• Anticipate, and answer, the possible questions
  that a reader might have.

36
How to Present Your Results

• Present your results in as logical a way as
  possible. If reader needs A to understand B, then
  first present A, then B.
• Always introduce technical terms before using
  them.

37
On Formalization

• Primary objective is claritybe as formal as it
  takes to make your point but no more!!
• Lift your results to the most abstract/general
  level I.e. convey main technique rather than
  mathematical fiddling.

38
Related Work

• Mandatory
• Situates the novelty and significance of your
  work. Answers at least the questions
• where do the ideas come from?
• have similar ideas been published earlier
• what is really new in the paper
• Where introduction or conclusion or stand-alone.

39
Conclusion

• Option 1 None
• Option 2 Minimal
• recapitulate problem and the contribution
• assesses the significance of the contribution
• outline of future work

40
Submission

• The Actors
• Author(s)
• Editor(s) / program committee members
• The referees
• The intended audience, and
• Time

41
Review

• The task of a referee is to evaluate in a timely
  manner a paper for publication (in journal or
  conference proceedings)
• Evaluation / Critical Judgment
• Timeliness

42
Receiving a Referee Report

• Before reading a referee report
• Take a deep breath
• Remember that a good report is always valuable
• somebody spent time reading your paper
• Use the reports to improve

In this job one needs a thick skin
43
To Remember

• Our currency is reputation. It takes a lot of
  hard work and (scientific) socal skills to build
  one, but it takes very little to destroy it
• Try to evaluate your own work using the standards
  you apply to somebody elses, but do not be your
  own worst enemy.