group: room attending faculty [laptop, projector]
A: MCML 160 Michiel van de Panne [MvdP TabletPC, built-in]
B: CICSR 163 Kellogg Booth [MvdP Vaio, JM]
C: CICSR 202 Joanna McGrenere [JM, JM]
The presenters are responsible for:
- mailing van@cs.ubc.ca the URL for their talk by 9am the day of the talk
- picking up the laptop + projector from Michiel's office (FSC 2616)
15-30 minutes prior to the class
- returning the same equipment to Michiel's office (FSC 2616) at the
scheduled end of class time
- telling Michiel if they need any extension cords for projector
A Warren Cheung
A Mark Crowley
A Ed McCormick
B Daniel Ferstay
B George Wittenburg
B Bertrand Low
C Zhijin Wang
C Mike Klaas
C Shelly Zhao
group: room attending faculty [laptop, projector]
A: ANGU 215 Michiel van de Panne [MvdP TabletPC, 402 proj]
B: CICSR 163 Kellogg Booth [MvdP Vaio, JM]
C: CICSR 204 Robert Bridson [SPIN, JM]
The presenters are responsible for:
- mailing van@cs.ubc.ca the URL for their talk by 9am the day of the talk
- picking up the laptop + projector from Michiel's office (FSC 2616)
15-30 minutes prior to the class
- returning the same equipment to Michiel's office (FSC 2616) at the
scheduled end of class time
- telling Michiel if they need any extension cords for projector
A Humaira Kamal
A Yizheng Cai
A Dmitry Nekrasovski
B Chen Yang
B Le (Leif) Chang
B Lior Berry
C Jocelyn Smith
C Adam Bodnar
C Mohammed Alam
A: MCML 160 Michiel van de Panne [MvdP TabletPC, built-in]
B: CICSR 163 Robert Bridson [SPIN, JM] (bring speakers)
C: CICSR 202 Richard Rosenberg [MvdP Vaio, JM]
The presenters are responsible for:
- mailing van@cs.ubc.ca the URL for their talk by 9am the day of the talk
- picking up the laptop + projector from Michiel's office (FSC 2616)
15-30 minutes prior to the class
- returning the same equipment to Michiel's office (FSC 2616) at the
scheduled end of class time
- telling Michiel if they need any extension cords for projector
A Xiaodong Zhou
A Micheline Manske
A Christian Chita
B Joseph Luk
B Vance Lockton
B Richard Corbett
C Sarah McKinnon-Cormier
C Jean-Noel Rivasseau
An Evaluation of the Ninth SOSP Submissions, or, How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper
ftp://fast.cs.utah.edu/pub/writing-papers.ps
by Roy Levin and David D. Redell
You do not have to hand anything in, but it is *expected* that you
will have read this paper. Also, please see
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dahlin/advice.html
as a good source for information.
Patrick Hayes and Kenneth Ford, Old Sins and New Confessions,
AI Magazine 20(2): Summer 1999, 128
http://www.aaai.org/Library/Magazine/Vol20/20-02/vol20-02.html
Mark A. Paskin . Thin Junction Tree Filters for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping.
In Proc. IJCAI-03, pp. 1157-1164, 2003.
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~paskin/
Darse Billings, Neil Burch, Aaron Davidson, Rob Holte,
Jonathan Schaeffer, Terence Schauenberg, and Duane Szafron.
Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-scale Poker,
In Proc. IJCAI-03, pp. 661-668, 2003.
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Papers/ai.2003.html
For the Hayes and Ford paper, ask yourself: Do the Deadly Sins apply in other research areas beside AI? Do they still apply in AI? Come prepared to discuss the question: Is any work in AI free of all the Deadly Sins? For the two IJCAI-03 papers briefly answer (with one or two sentences), in writing, the following questions: What is the motivation for this work? What is the proposed solution (hypothesis, idea, design)? What evaluation of the proposed solution is presented? Did this evaluation convince you of the merit of the proposed solution? What are the paper's contributions (both the author's opinion and your own)? Are any of the Deadly Sins in evidence in this paper?
On the Criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules David Parnas CACM, 15(12), 1053-1058http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/381598.361623
Invariant Inference for Static Checking: An Empirical Evaluation Nimmer and Ernst Proc. of FSE 2002http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587051.587054
In this class (lecture), we will discuss the kinds of problems and approaches taken to research in programming languages and software engineering. Since my background is in software engineering, we'll focus more on that area than programming languages (but we will discuss the differences). Please read the two assigned papers *before* class and fill in the reading evaluation form for each paper *before* class. These two papers show two kinds of problems tackled in these research areas, demonstrate some of the differences in evaluation approaches taken (particularly how research methods are evolving in this area). Come prepared to discuss these papers! (i.e., I don't expect to be doing all, or even most, of the talking).